Pursuant to the resolution adopted by the House on 3 June 1963, I have to inform hon. members that I summoned Mr. R. A. Gill, the Editor of the Pretoria News, to my office this morning and administered a suitable reprimand to him for the breach of privilege committed by the Pretoria News on 4 October 1962.

Mr. Gill then made an oral apology to all members of the House of Assembly in the following terms:

Mr. Gill thereafter signed the following written apology:

Mr. Gill also undertook to publish this apology on the front page of the Pretoria News.

I move—

An amendment of the Building Societies Act, 1934, has become necessary as a result of a recent judgment of the full Bench of the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court in the case of Capital Building Society v. Registrar of Building Societies. The Court decided that building societies, in making advances against the security of the mortgage of urban immovable property, are restricted to advances where the money lent will be utilized for the purposes set out in Section 1 (2) (b) of Act 62 of 1934, as amended; i.e. for the following purposes, namely—

1. (a) To acquire by purchase urban immovable property;
2. (b) to erect buildings on such property; or
3. (c) to make additions or alterations to or to maintain such buildings.

Building societies had never interpreted the provisions of the Act in that manner, and, relying on the provisions of Section 24, which deals with the investment of funds and contains no such restrictions in respect of advances, had granted numerous advances and particularly readvances for purposes other than those mentioned above. Societies over the years had been granting advances against the security of urban immovable property, for example, to enable the borrower to redeem an existing bond over property. Readvances particularly were granted for any purpose, like the defrayment of extraordinary medical expenses or the payment of income-tax. The effect of the judgment referred to above is to render ultra vires the Act all such advances and readvances.

Since the granting of advances for any purpose against mortgage of urban immovable property had been such a prevalent practice with building societies, the public had become accustomed to this facility. If this established practice were now stopped it would not only disrupt the building society business, but would also be detrimental to the public interest.

A restriction of advances on the lines of Section 1 (2) (b) can only be justified if it were decided for reasons of public policy to limit building society financing facilities. On the other hand, in many instances the ordinary man in the street has no asset other than his house that can be used as security for a loan when he is in need of funds, and there is, therefore, much to be said for allowing him to raise money from a building society on the security of such asset. Also from a building society point of view there seems to be no reason why an advance or a readvance should not be granted against the security of urban immovable property irrespective of the purpose for which the money will be used, as long as the security is adequate.

In all the circumstances I have agreed, after I had received representations from the building society movement, to introduce this Bill to restore to building societies the scope of business which they transacted before the Court judgment. I have agreed to this course, however, on the understanding that the Technical Committee which I appointed some time ago to inquire into the desirability of amending the Banking Act and the Building Societies Act will not be restricted in its consideration of matters by the fact that amending legislation of this nature is considered at this juncture.

By the mere removal of the restrictions which the Court found were embodied in Section 1 (2) (b) of the Act, building societies would be exposed to the danger of granting too high a proportion of loans on the security of vacant land unless a suitable restriction in this respect was imposed. It stands to reason that loans on the security of vacant land, particularly vacant land in new townships which are still in the early stages of development, are much more risky than loans on the security of developed properties. This point cannot be better illustrated than by the facts of the case which resulted in the Court action which necessitated this legislation. In that event a small building society contemplated advancing some R286,000, representing more than 50 per cent of its total funds, to four private companies against the security of vacant lots in four undeveloped townships. The Registrar of Building Societies intervened and on the application of the society to the Court for an interpretation of the relative provisions of the Act, the Court upheld the contention of the Registrar that the advances, in the particular circumstances, would be ultra vires the Act and that they could not be made. It is clear, therefore that to safeguard the trust money with which building societies work, it is essential to place further restrictions on advances against the security of vacant land.

The object of this Bill is, therefore, firstly, to remove, with retrospective effect, the limitation of Section 1 (2) (b) on the purposes for which advances may be granted so as to regularize advances already granted by societies falling outside the scope of Section 1 (2) (b) and to enable societies to continue the established lending practices, and, secondly, to impose restrictions, in Section 24, on the granting of advances against security, of mortgage of vacant land.

The restriction proposed is twofold, namely, a limitation of—

1. (a) The aggregate amount a society may advance against the security of vacant land; and
2. (b) the amount a society may so advance in any one township. In order to be equitable to societies these restrictions are related to the size of societies.

In commending this Bill to the consideration of the House, I am pleased to say that the Association of Building Societies, which has been consulted in regard to the proposals, supports this legislation. Indeed, the association has rendered valuable assistance in formulating the proposals.

The building societies occupy such an important place in the life of the country that any Bill affecting the activities of those societies naturally calls for the careful attention of this House. But as the hon. Minister has explained this Bill is not intended to affect the activities of building societies; on the contrary, it intends to maintain the activities, which it now transpires, according to a Supreme Court judgment, they have been unwittingly illegally indulging in for many years past, and amongst the illegal things which they have been doing, Sir, according to the hon. Minister, is that they have been lending money to people to pay their income-tax with. I take it that that makes the hon. Minister an accessory after the fact in respect of the crime of the building societies. One can sympathize with him therefore in his anxiety to get this Bill through without undue delay. As far as we are concerned, Sir, we have no objection to the passing of this Bill.

I wish to thank the hon. member for his condonation of my crime.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This is a very simple Bill which really deals with two main issues, firstly the establishment of a staff board for the Post Office and secondly a medical aid scheme for all public servants. The first three clauses relate to the proposed staff board and the fourth clause of the Bill deals with the second matter which I have mentioned. Clause 1, in the first place, amends the definition of “Commission”, that is to say, the Public Service Commission, in Section 1 of the principal Act. That is an amendment which is consequential upon the insertion in the principal Act of a new Section 4bis by means of Clause 2 of the Bill. It is purely a formal amendment therefore.

A few words now with regard to Clauses 2 and 3. Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the principal Act provides that the Public Service Commission may delegate certain of its powers to its members or to officials in the office of the commission. Clause 3 of this amending Bill amends the relevant sub-section of the principal Act so as to make provision also for the further delegation of powers to a staff board which is being established in terms of Clause 2 (the new Section 4bis) for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The staff board which is about to be established will consist of a member of the Public Service Commission nominated by the commission after consultation with the Minister of the Interior, and two members of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, who will be appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in consultation with the Public Service Commission. This staff board will in general be able to make recommendations with regard to all matters in connection with which the commission delegates powers to it, and such recommendations will be regarded as having been made by the commission itself. In other words, the board will be able to use the powers delegated to it to perform certain functions and such functions will be regarded as having been performed by the Public Service Commission itself. The purpose of these amendments is to give greater autonomy to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in respect of staff administration and to enable it to dispose of matters, particularly urgent matters, much more expeditiously than has been the case in the past. The need for this has been felt for many years by various interested bodies, particularly the recognized staff associations of postal officials themselves. This measure can also be justified on the ground that the postal staff constitutes something like one-third of the total establishment of the Public Service, that is to say, excluding the services. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is called upon to render a very efficient service on business lines to all sections of the community, a service which in the nature of things cannot be hindered by delays, and which therefore necessitates planning and organization on a larger scale than in any other Government Department. Efficient staff administration cannot be separated from efficient performance of work and it is anticipated that this measure which is now before the House will enable the Department to administer staff matters more efficiently and consequently also to fulfil its function more efficiently. Sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the principal Act provides that certain specified powers of the commission may not be delegated to a member of the commission or to an official in the office of the commission. I shall indicate in a moment what those powers are. Generally speaking this limitation is still regarded as advisable and essential as far as the delegation of powers is concerned. But the imposition of this limitation on the proposed staff board would to a large extent defeat our object in establishing the staff board. For that reason the relevant subsection of the principal Act which forbids this is being amended by providing in paragraph (c) of Clause 3 that certain of the reserved powers referred to may also be delegated to the staff board if the Minister of the Interior approves of it.

Let me mention just a few of the powers which it will be possible to delegate. No decision has yet been taken in this regard, but for the sake of greater clarity let me mention some of the powers which in all probability will be delegated. In the first place I want to mention staff appointments in regard to which there were great delays under the old method; then there is the question of promotions, disciplinary matters, the determination of merit, establishment matters according to the method of counting units; and recommendations with regard to conditions of service where the Public Service Commission has already laid down a policy.

I have tentatively mentioned just the main issues but I think hon. members will realize what problems this accumulation of work in the office of the Public Service Commission has caused in the past. The work is of a comprehensive nature, and we feel that with this amendment we will make it possible for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to function better. At this stage I might also just indicate that the Public Service Joint Advisory Council supports these amendments, and that naturally the Post Office is also represented on the Public Service Joint Advisory Council.

Just a few words now with regard to Clause 4 which contains the second amendment of importance. All that is proposed here is to make provision that in addition to the matters in connection with which regulations may be promulgated in terms of Section 26 of the principal Act, regulations may be promulgated by the State President with regard to other matters, namely the establishment and management of and control over a compulsory medical aid fund or funds for public servants. Mr. Speaker, medical aid funds or medical aid associations for public servants, membership of which is voluntary at the present time, have existed for many years. There is the Public Servants’ Medical Aid Association which came into being as far back as 9 February 1905, and then there is also the Post Office Medical Aid Association which was established under another name on 1 July 1922, and which has been known under its present name since 1923. These are old funds therefore which have existed for years. The latter association, as its name indicates, was established to assist employees of the Post Office to meet their medical expenses, while the former is open to the rest of the Public Service. Both these associations are under the control of committees composed of public servants. The members serve on these committees voluntarily in their spare time. Each of the associations in turn employs full-time officials who are appointed by these committees and who are remunerated by these associations. The actual membership of the existing two associations is small in relation to the total strength of the Public Service. The reasons why the membership is so small are possibly, firstly, that the available benefits are not sufficiently attractive; secondly, the fact that the subscription fees are beyond the means of the lower income groups. Another reason perhaps is that potential members postpone joining the association until they need medical aid and find themselves in financial distress. Whatever the reason may be, the effect of it is that these two medical aid associations have not been able to attract persons who constitute good risks, who are comparatively healthy and who will only need assistance in exceptional circumstances. In 1955 the Government decided to grant financial assistance to these two associations, and funds have been made available annually for that purpose. At the present time the annual grant is pegged at R240,000. It was anticipated that as a result of the assistance granted by the State they would be in a position to recruit new members, and that members of the Public Service would be encouraged to join so that the associations would be able to bring about a more favourable distribution of risk and in that way obtain financial relief. Unfortunately that hope was not realized. In spite of very intensive propaganda campaigns launched by both associations, that hope was not realized, and the total membership of the two associations as at 31 December 1962 was 20,922 out of a possible membership of 125,658. At this moment therefore the vast majority of the officials have no protection against the heavy burdens which they may be called upon to bear through illness. The state of affairs which I have mentioned here made it necessary to go into this matter once again to see in what way and by which method this problem could be overcome, and the only method which we could find was to make membership of these medical aid schemes compulsory.

Over a period of many years the various recognized staff associations as well as the Public Service Joint Advisory Council passed various resolutions in which they asked that membership should be made compulsory. As far back as the early ’forties the Phillips Committee which had been appointed to go into this matter recommended the introduction of a compulsory medical scheme. At that time, however, that recommendation was not given effect to.

Apart from the Government’s decision in 1955 to subsidize the existing associations, there were no developments worth mentioning before 1961 when, on the recommendation of the Public Service Joint Advisory Committee, a committee was again appointed to go into the matter. The Public Service Commission, the Treasury, as well as all recognized staff associations and the existing medical aid societies were represented on the 1961 Committee. The committee found that it was still the general desire of the public servants that a compulsory medical scheme should be instituted and that it would be in the interests of both the State and the public servants, and it therefore recommended the introduction of such a scheme. The principle of a compulsory medical scheme was accepted by the Government; hence this legislation which is now before the House. The Public Service Joint Advisory Council was also consulted in connection with this aspect of the proposed legislation, and the members of this body unanimously support the principle of the introduction of such a scheme. The details of the scheme, or of any scheme which may be introduced, have not yet been worked out, of course. If this legislation is accepted, the door remains open for further inquiries and for the formulation of the essential elements of the scheme, and regulations can then be drafted in this connection. In drawing up the regulations the Public Service Joint Advisory Council will again be consulted, but the condition attached to it is that the Government’s contribution will remain pegged at R240,000. A scheme will have to be worked out within that financial framework, and the regulations which are drawn up will also have to receive the approval of the State President.

This is a measure which can develop into one of great importance to the Post Office. As that is so, I was particularly struck by two factors during the speech of the hon. Minister. The first was an apparent feeling of reluctance and lack of enthusiasm on the part of the hon. Minister in introducing this Bill. The second factor was the following: this is a Bill which affects 45,000 public servants, one-third of the Public Service establishment of South Africa and the largest single body of public servants. The Post Office falls under the direction and guidance of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He is the gentleman who was supposed to have made the necessary representations to the Cabinet and the rest of the Government on behalf of his Department for a Bill of this nature, and therefore I was secondly struck by the fact that the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs when this very important Bill affecting his Department is being discussed is not in his seat.

We have listened to the hon. Minister of the Interior who has given us the particulars of this Bill—we have heard Polonius, but where is Banquo? Where is the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? I certainly feel that he should come and explain his attitude to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, one can understand the measure of reluctance there is on the part of the Government in bringing forward this Bill, for after all they have not been noted for their friendship, for their sympathy towards the members of the Post Office staff during the period that they have been in power. I would go so far as to say that if it had not been for the work of the genuine friends of the Post Office, this Bill would not have been presented here this afternoon, and those genuine friends are certainly not to be found on the other side of the House. If it had not been for the work of the postal associations who have pressed, desperately on occasion, but always firmly, for a measure akin to this, we would not have had this Bill before us to-day. Other bodies have pressed for a measure of which this is a partial expression. I need only mention organized commerce and organized industry, both of whom have had resolutions before their congresses on this particular matter which were adopted, demanding that something along these lines should be done. Yet months and years have passed before the Government ultimately has come with a measure such as this. I believe that even the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut has been pressing at its congresses for many, many months for a measure of this nature. So I say that had it not been for those bodies, and those organizations and those friends of the Post Office, I am sure the hon. Minister would not have seen his way open to come forward with this Bill here this afternoon.

Do you support the Bill?

The curious curiosity of the hon. member will soon be satisfied, I am sure.

This Bill has arisen out of the desperate plight of the 40,000 Post Office workers who have been suffering under the lack of sympathy of this Government over the past five to ten years. The hon. Minister in his speech did not mention all the reasons why he had to come forward with this Bill. He did not mention all the complaints laid before him on the part of the Post Office as to why the position was becoming entirely intolerable.

I left something for you to say.

I am very glad that the hon. the Minister is leaving it to this side of the House to speak up for the Post Office workers. We are proud indeed to do so, because he has failed to do it.

The Public Service Commission is a body with wide powers concerning ordinary Government Departments which do normal administrative work. In the case of the Post Office, however, we have more than an ordinary Government Department. It is really a big business undertaking, a huge organization spending tens of millions of rand every year and having an equivalent income, and which showed a profit of R13,000,000 last year (another reason incidentally why, without it being an additional burden on the taxpayers, something can be done for the Post Office workers, as this Bill now tries to do). The problems in the Post Office were so great that the position was becoming desperate. In some years the turnover in Post Office staff was as high as 20 per cent, the reason being simply because the Post Office was bound by the antiquated regulations of the Public Service Commission, which simply could not apply to a big business undertaking like the Post Office. The position became so desperate during last year that ultimately the Government was forced to appoint a special committee to go into the matter and to come with certain recommendations. That committee, as I said before, came far too late. It should have been appointed years earlier.

My proof for saying that it came too late is to be found in the events of the past year, in the meetings of protest held by desperate, wronged men in the Post Office, the meetings of Post Office employees who passed an unofficial motion of no confidence in their Minister who is absent to-day, and desperately cried out: “Give us a Ben Schoeman as a Minister and we might do better!” That shows how desperate they had become. There was even talk of a go-slow movement and working according to the rules unless something was done for the workers. Fortunately responsible leadership prevented action of that nature, to which we on this side would not have agreed, but it does indicate how serious the problem was.

Instead of having come with this Bill earlier, the Government gave a few sops to the Post Office workers. There was the regarding of a few posts and a few not insignificant new scales were announced, but still that did not satisfy the workers. As late as 31 March this year there was a meeting of 100 senior Post Office officials in Cape Town, at which they accused the Government of having bamboozled the Post Office workers. I mention these matters to show how desperate the need was for some or other measure, and this is the measure with which the hon. the Minister has now come.

One of the great difficulties in the Post Office was that the Public Service regulations prevented fair chances of promotion for the vast bulk of the Post Office staff. The great majority of Post Office workers are in the lower income groups of the Public Service. It therefore makes it difficult for them to achieve promotion. In the Public Service in general the chances of promotion are one in 2.7, while in the Post Office it is only one in 7.8, which shows that the chances of promotion in the Post Office are three times as bad as in the Public Service. The hon. the Minister knew about this for years and only now is he trying to do something about it. Now we have this little Bill. It is indeed, let me admit, a step forward and in the right direction, albeit a reluctant step and an uncertain step, and one which would not have been taken if the Minister had not been pushed into doing something at last.

Let us look at some of the main provisions in the Bill. First of all, a staff board of three members is to be appointed. Now we know that there have been demands by the Post Office employees for something along these lines. On occasion they asked for an autonomous Public Service Commissioner. I am not pleading for that now, because it would involve new legislation, and I am discussing the present Bill. But there have been these requests for some or other body which could give greater independence to the Post Office in its relationship to the rest of the Public Service. I believe that most of the Post Office staff were happy when an announcement was made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs earlier this year. In that statement the Minister outlined the new scheme for the Post Office. Now, I shall not deal with the new relations with the Treasury, or with the Department of Transport, or with the P.W.D. I shall only deal with that part of the Minister’s statement in which something along the lines of this Bill was announced. The Minister said “a Post Office Commission would be established under the Public Service Commission”. That was a definite promise made by the Minister of Posts, and without going into the merits or demerits of the matter, I should like to know why the Government has in fact gone back on its word and has not given the postal workers their commission but only a staff board of three members, of which one is a member of the Public Service Commission and the other two can only be appointed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs after consultation with the Public Service Commission itself.

Clause 2 (4) of the Bill says that there has to be general agreement between all three members of the board before anything can be done for the Post Office. I hope there will be that general agreement and that something can be made of this board, but I must say that the Minister has indeed circumscribed the powers of this staff board to such an extent that it will not be able to do everything it would like to do for the Post Office. The great test of this Bill will be what effect is given to these provisions. It can be made a dead letter. It can be turned into a body which will not be able to do what it would have liked to do for the Post Office. On the other hand, it may be that the Minister will make such appointments to the board as would indeed benefit the Post Office.

He explained to us that there were rather extensive powers of delegation given to the Public Service Commission, which will now be exercised by this staff board. One test of the efficacy of this Bill will be whether the Minister will as soon as practically possible make appointments to that board; secondly, whether he will delegate the powers to that board provided for in this Bill; thirdly, see that an immediate investigation is made into the complaints in regard to the whole staff structure of the Post Office, and, fourthly, to see that immediate effect is given to any recommendations made by the board.

The powers granted can be wide, despite the very narrow wording of the Bill itself. For instance, power can be delegated to the staff board to make recommendations as to the salaries and grades and allowances of all the various officers in the Post Office. That power originally belonged to the Public Service Commission in terms of Section 6 (2) (d) of the Public Service Act. Power can also be delegated to deal with discharges and with the position of women officers. The Minister may be unaware of it, but I am sure the Minister of Posts, who is still not here, is not unaware of the fact that there have been justified complaints from women members of the Post Office staff, particularly married women, in regard to their conditions of service. Now the staff board will have the power to relieve this unsatisfactory position to some extent. Let us hope that the board will work in that direction to the satisfaction of the Post Office workers.

Having said that, I wish to conclude by telling the Minister that we on this side of the House are prepared to support the second reading of this Bill. We are prepared to do so, as I said, because we wish to indicate first of all that this is a correct step, however reluctant or feeble it may be, and because, secondly, we want to give the Minister the chance to make this an effective staff board and not merely a branch of the Public Service Commission. We are prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt and therefore we are prepared to give him the chance to show that the intentions of the Government are genuine towards the Post Office staff, and not merely lip service. Therefore we support the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, we have now listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) for some time, and to the dust he has raised here, and in conclusion he said that the Opposition supports the Bill. We on our part wish to thank the Minister of the Interior for having taken this step, because we believe, together with the staff of the Post Office, that their interests are in good hands. A tremendous fuss has now been made because the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not present, but I do not know whether the hon. member is aware that it is a matter that really falls under the Minister of the Interior, and these things should not be threshed out here in the House of Assembly; the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs fought along the right channels for the step now being taken. We thank the Minister and we support this Bill 100 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has already said, we support this Bill. I have in mind one or two little things I should have liked to see changed, particularly after listening to the hon. the Minister, but I must say I believe this Bill will improve things considerably for the Post Office personnel. The Minister has told us that appointments will be referred to this committee, as well as prosecutions, although I am not very interested in prosecutions, because prosecutions could have been postponed for a while.

No, these are not prosecutions. Who wants to prosecute anybody now?

If they are promotions, then I am very much more interested. I was wondering how prosecutions come in here. The merit provisions and the recommendations are subject to conditions already laid down by the Public Service Commission. It is somewhat restrictive, as the Minister has put it. I should have liked to see that this committee should be able to make recommendations to the Public Service Commission, but the Minister says they can only deal with recommendations after the Public Service Commission has laid down the policy, and that gives me some cause for doubt. It is a committee of the Public Service Commission which is appointed, and I welcome the proposal that two members of the Post Office personnel will be members of it. As the hon. member for Orange Grove has said, there are 45,000 people in the service of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, and that is a very big Department. The Post Office employees are employed under conditions that differ wholly from those of the ordinary public servants and I welcome the proposal to appoint people with knowledge of posts and telegraphs to the board. Next we come to sub-clause (4), which deals with the position when there is disagreement in that board, and the matter is referred back. It provides that the Postmaster-General shall submit the matter to the Public Service Commission. Here I am in a quandary. Where on the one hand it is provided that the Postmaster-General shall refer it to the Public Service Commission, I infer that the Postmaster-General will have a big say in all these matters. Then I wonder whether in fact it is necessary to retain this provision, because it seems to me that we are already saying that this board is not going to work. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us some more light on the subject. I welcome the Bill. I am not going to deal with all the steps that are taken because the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not present, but I appreciate that the hon. the Minister of the Interior must act on the recommendation of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs.

I also welcome the establishment of a medical aid fund with compulsory participation. Of course the Minister knows that we on this side are very great champions of such a fund, and we welcome it, particularly for the reasons the Minister has given, although I was somewhat perturbed to learn that there is such a small number of members, 20,000 out of 122,000, at the present time. The Minister has given us the reasons why more people did not join. He said they could possibly not afford to do so, etc., but as it is now made compulsory, I take it that admission will be made so much easier, so that it will also be within reach of those who do not earn too much, so that they also may become members of this medical fund. But the Minister says the contribution of the Government is pegged at R240,000 per annum. He added that he thinks that possibly 122,600 people will participate in this medical aid fund, and I think the Minister said that that contribution has been made annually since 1955. Am I right?

No, it was less at first, but it has gradually increased.

Then it is still somewhat disappointing, because I thought that since 1955 the contribution was R240,000, and that would have meant that in that event a fairly considerable fund would have been built up.

It is short term, so that you do not want a big fund. It is only from year to year.

I do not wish to talk to that hon. member now. The Minister has said there are 122,600 people who can participate in the fund, and I wish to ask him whether he thinks R240,000 is sufficient to provide the benefits to those people, seeing that so many of them are earning rather small salaries.

But the members also have to pay.

As the salaries of the people are so small, the Government should contribute enough to enable the fund to function. If the fund cannot function, it is no good. But we welcome this fund and we welcome the committee which is being appointed, and we hope it will work well.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is concerned about the amount which is fixed at R240,000 for the fund, but is the hon. member not aware of the fact that the members also contribute to the fund? Secondly I should like to ask the hon. member how big this fund was in 1947 when they were on the crest of their power? Was there such a fund then? It is easy to find fault with what is being done now. All of us would like to have more money, but the Government has still to be responsible always, and it must approach the matter in a balanced way. In the days when the hon. member’s Government was in power they did nothing of this kind for the officials.

This Bill is once again being grasped at by the Opposition in an attempt to catch votes. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) reminds me of the story I heard about the Anglo-Boer War, when the Boers told of how they used to sit and watch the artillery firing. First they saw a cloud of dust when the shot was fired, and a little later the bomb fell among them, and in the meantime they shouted “Aspaai” and scattered in different directions. The hon. member always raises such a dust storm before he comes to his sham bomb, and then that bomb is a dud, as it was to-day again. This situation is being utilized, firstly, to launch an attack upon the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs because he is not here now, while the Minister of the Interior is piloting through the Bill. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is occupied with important work and cannot be here. [Interjection.] We know there is a specific problem here, which is such that the Opposition wish to make political capital out of it and are trying to catch votes among the Post Office employees, but they will not succeed in that because this Government has once again chosen the sound course which offers a solution to the problems. We are aware that a departmental committee was appointed to inquire into the problems of the Post Office, and we are aware of some of the recommendations made by that committee, of a separate Service Commission for the Post Office. We are aware that this Bill does not provide for a separate Service Commission, but for a staff board, and we accept that it is an attempt to find a solution to a problem, because we have reached the stage where the Government very clearly realizes that there is a difference between the work and the conditions of employment of the Post Office personnel and that of the Public Service. The public servant normally works 39 hours a week, whereas the Post Office employee normally works 42 to 48 hours per week. The public servant can normally perform his functions from behind a desk, whereas a large number of Post Office employees have to stand on their feet all day. The Post Office personnel work shifts and have to work over the week-ends, something that is not done in the Public Service. The Post Office is run on business lines. They cannot charge abnormal tariffs, because it must be on an economic basis, but at the same time it is part of the Public Service. Therefore it cannot fulfil its functions like an ordinary business, nor as a normal Government Department. It is something between the two, and that is the crux of the whole problem this Bill is trying to remedy. I should like to mention an example to illustrate the matter. The Postmaster of Johannesburg is responsible for the full amount of money handled by that office annually, and last year the figure for that post office alone was R32,000,000. In the business world, when a person is responsible for a turnover of R32,000,000 he will receive a fantastic salary. The salary of the Postmaster of Johannesburg is R5,600. For purposes of comparison I should like to mention the Postmaster at Welkom. The turnover in the post office at Welkom for the same year was R500,000, but the salary of the postmaster is R3,600. There are a couple of other things involved here, which make us feel very sympathetic towards the Post Office personnel. For instance, there is their problem in respect of opportunities for advancement. We are aware that the opportunities in this regard are not as plentiful in the Postal Services as in the Public Service, but from the nature of things it is not practically possible. At a certain sorting table where postal articles are handled or sorted, there are 30 or 40 sorters, and there is one supervisor who has to supervise the whole group. You find a group of telephonists at a large exchange; there may be 25 or 30 ladies under the supervision of one lady. In other words, for those 25 or 30 there is only one post to which they can be promoted. Normally there are not so many opportunities for advancement in the Post Office personnel as in the Public Service. In the Public Service there are many more opportunities for advancement, and the result of this is, from the very nature of things, that a member of the Post Office staff only receives an opportunity for advancement at a more advanced age than a member of the Public Service, and we fully appreciate that. In this whole set-up one can appreciate the discontent of the Post Office personnel. Take two people who commence duties simultaneously after matriculation; one in the Post Office and the other in the Public Service. Ten or 12 years later they compare their positions, and the Post Office man is not so well off at all as the Public Service official. Mr. Speaker, we understand all these problems; the Opposition must not pretend that they alone are aware of these problems or that they alone sympathize with the Post Office staff. We are fully aware of their problems, but surely it is not necessary to constantly air in public all these kinds of problems; surely it is not necessary constantly to come and wash the dirty laundry of the Post Office staff in public and hang it outside, and to make a fuss. We are not busy trying to catch votes among the Post Office personnel and it has never been our aim to do so. We are adopting only one attitude, and that is that we are aware of their problems, and we are now taking the necessary steps through the proper channels. The Government is doing its duty in this regard.

I wish to express only one more thought before I come to this specific theme, and that is this: From the nature of things certain powers and functions have already been delegated to the Post Office and the Post Office personnel. We are aware of the fact, for instance, that already a number of files are being kept by the Post Office personnel on Post Office matters and Post Office promotions, and that the Public Service Commission had a duplicate set of files for the same people, because they were really responsible for the Post Office personnel.

What clause are you discussing now?

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) is usually off the tracks. In a second-reading debate one discusses the principle of a Bill. Mr. Speaker is quite capable of calling me to order if I transgress the rules. I understand and I appreciate the whole situation. I am trying to state the crux of the matter here. The problem is that the Post Office at this stage is not completely separated from the Public Service because it is connected with the Public Service; nor can you keep the Post Office completely within the Public Service because it requires a different approach to that of the Public Service, and in the light of those facts we want to welcome this Bill. A staff board is now established under this Bill for the Post Office Department, a staff board consisting of two Post Office officials who are intimately acquainted with all these specific problems of the Post Office staff, and of their specific complaints in regard to their conditions of employment. Direct and specific attention can now be given to their problems by people who are dealing with it all day long, but the link with the Public Service is being retained in the meantime so that reckless things cannot be done. The hon. member objected to sub-clause (4) which provides that failing general agreement among the members of the staff board on any matter, the Postmaster-General shall submit such matter to the Public Service Commission which shall deal with it as if the power or function concerned had not been delegated to the staff board. But can the hon. member not realize the position if this staff board were to function on their own without any interference from outside? If they wish to be irresponsible they could recommend a wholly new salary structure for the entire Post Office staff. Can the hon. member not realize what problems the Public Service Commission will then have with their own personnel if something of that nature were to happen? For that reason the link between this staff board and the Public Service Commission must remain. In practice I see the position thus, that the majority of the problems in regard to Post Office matters will be dealt with by this staff board because they will be in agreement on it. Promotions which could normally be disposed of by the staff board, but which still have to be referred to the Public Service Commission for ratification, will now be capable of being disposed of by this board because the power may be delegated to them. It is only in regard to matters on which there may be a material difference of opinion between the Public Service Commission and this staff board, that there will be disagreement and that these matters will therefore be submitted to the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Speaker, in the light of all these facts, we welcome this Bill. We are grateful that this Bill could be introduced at this stage, and that it offers a satisfactory solution to a problem which has existed in the Post Office. We hope this staff board will function successfully, but we are convinced also as we know the Minister, that if it does not give satisfaction, he will be the first man who will come to this House next year or the year after and say: This system is not working satisfactorily, and we want to make these amendments. I shall leave the matter at that. In conclusion I should like to say that I welcome the compulsory medical scheme on behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of all the public servants. I think it is something all public servants have looked forward to very much.

I want to ask the Minister what the position of the Coloured employees is going to be under this Bill. I appreciate that the Coloured people who are employed in the Post Office—I speak subject to correction here—have their own organization but they have no direct representation except through Europeans. I do not want to deal with that aspect because I do not think it falls within the purview of this Bill. I cannot speak at any great length on the sub-sections dealing with the staff board. It must obviously be composed of Europeans because there are lots of Europeans involved, so I do not think there will be any objection if the Coloured people are not directly represented on that board. But I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me in regard to Clause 4, whether the Coloured employees will be able to qualify for the proposed medical scheme. I ask this question because the wording of the clause indicates that certain people may be asked to join and certain people may be excluded. The clause reads—

I take it that “classes” refers to the classes of employees. It would be a great pity if this is going to be confined only to Europeans. Nothing has been said so far about the Coloured employees and that is why I raise this matter. I hope, since this legislation is a step forward in the interest of employees in the Post Office that the Minister will also help those Coloured people who are advanced in the Post Office service. The Minister will no doubt know that certain Coloured men have been appointed as postmasters in certain post offices and that it is the policy of the Government to train more Coloured people to take charge of post offices, particularly in Coloured areas. I would like to know therefore whether Coloured employees will be accepted; whether only certain classes of employees will be accepted or whether this clause will apply to all employees. It would be a great pity if the Coloured people were excluded from these medical aid funds; many of them have had very many years of service. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not here but the Minister can accept my word that there are many Coloured men who have given many years of good service to the Post Office and I feel that they are entitled to be included. I may be anticipating a reply from the Minister that they are in fact not excluded but I should like him to tell me if they are included, and if they are not included I should like to know why this will not apply to Coloured employees particularly those men who have risen in the service and who are holding very responsible jobs. I shall be very disappointed if the Coloured people are not to be included. If that is so I may have to register my protest against this Bill which I would otherwise support. As has been said by all previous speakers, this is a measure which we ought to support, but if the Coloureds are not included I hope the Minister will give us the reason so that I can make representations to the proper authorities on behalf of these people whom I represent in this House.

I think it will be generally accepted that over the past few years there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction in relation to the Post Office and that this dissatisfaction has come from two sources, firstly, from the public and even more generally and more forcefully from the Post Office staff themselves. I think this measure which we are considering now will do a great deal to satisfy the postal employees. I think this measure is first of all a tribute to the Post Office staff itself and secondly, a recognition of the importance of the Post Office in our life. It has quite rightly been said that the Post Office differs in practically all respects from the normal Government Departments. It is a Department which has a product to sell, and when you have a product to sell it is very essential that the relationship between the staff and the management should be as harmonious as possible. This particular Bill takes cognizance of the fact that there are differences between the Post Office and the Public Service and that the staff in an organization selling and making a profit for the country and relieving us as taxpayers of quite a considerable amount of money, requires special treatment. In general terms, in any organization to-day the basic principle for success where there are large numbers of staff is a sound relationship between management and employee, and in an organization like the Post Office with its vast technical development, with its organization continually expanding, a contented staff is of paramount importance. Sir, for many years we in commerce and industry have expressed the view that the Post Office in order to be successful cannot possibly be treated as a normal Department of State. This is not the occasion to elaborate on that theme, but it is the occasion to say to the hon. the Minister that this policy which is set out in this particular Bill, is one which industry has felt for a long time is necessary, and we are grateful that this step is being taken.

In regard to Clause 4 of the Bill, the Minister is again following the normal pattern which obtains in commerce and industry to-day. We have had discussions in this House on many occasions, on many topics relating to this particular topic—the question of social security, the question of health, the question of medical fees and a host of things which are tied up with this provision for the establishment of medical aid funds. There is particularly the question of a compulsory medical aid scheme which has become the pattern to-day in commercial and industrial life and I therefore welcome that provision.

The introducer of the debate on that side to-day certainly had a most unenviable task to perform. He would have liked to continue on the note on which he started off. By welcoming the Bill at the end, he himself however erased what he had hoped to use as a last opportunity—the case he has tried to build up during the whole Session by posing as the great champion of the welfare and the progress of the Post Office personnel. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not concerned with this legislation at all. He had his opportunity as a member of the Cabinet to discuss and to approve this legislation together with his colleagues in the Cabinet. Legislation submitted to the House meets with the approval of the Cabinet. In other words, he was a party to it. But that is not the main thing. The main thing is that my colleague for very good and definite reasons which require his presence elsewhere, cannot be present. I think that when a member of the Cabinet cannot be here, it is in very poor taste to come and launch such an attack upon him here, in the way the hon. member has done, and to ask repeatedly why the Minister is not here. I do not think that serves any good purpose. We are also discussing Post Office matters here to-day. We are concerned here with the establishment of a staff board, a staff board which could lead to better administration of the Public Service as a whole. The Public Service is being dealt with here and not just the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not wish to repeat what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has said, nor do I even want to try to reply to all his points, but he really has given one the impression that he is the great vulture on that side; that he hovers around and circles round and round to see whether a corpse cannot be picked up here and there. He tries to create the impression here that the Government has no sympathy with the Post Office employees, and that the Government is leaving them to their fate, and that the Government has now been compelled by pressure from outside, and particularly pressure from inside this House—and then the hon. member for Orange Grove has the temerity to pose as the great exerter of pressure here—to introduce this measure. In my outline of the Bill, I put it very clearly and plainly that this matter has been discussed for years, but the difficulty has always been that in the Public Service one does not want a dreary uniformity, but one wants the certainty that nothing will be done for one member of the staff that will prejudice another member of the staff. I am quite willing to accept that there are differences in the Public Service. There are not only differences between the Post Office staff and the ordinary administrative staff; there also are great differences between professional staff and ordinary administrative personnel. These differences we shall have to recognize in due course to an increasing extent, and we shall have to try to take these differences into account, but then we must in the first place approach the matter very circumspectly, and we have to remember that we are discussing the efficiency of the activities of staff members who are not present here. I should like to point out particularly that the hon. member wanted to create the general impression that as things have been going thus far, it has been to the greatest disadvantage of the Post Office officials, and that the Government would not have done anything had it not been for all the threats of the various Post Office associations and the pressure exerted here within the House. That is not true. The Government has not for one moment permitted itself to be intimidated by any body or person, but what the Government has done has been to consider representations made to it on their merits. Everything done in this respect has been judged on merit, and dealt with in consequence of that. I want to say here that this so-called intimidation to which the hon. member for Orange Grove has referred has never been regarded by the Government in that light, for I do not think there has ever been anything of the kind. What does happen—and that is the task of the association as well—is that staff associations submit their representations to the authorities. We know that it happens in the case of trade unions. For seven years I had to deal with that as Minister of Labour, and I never took it amiss of the staff associations. Those people have a right to come along with their representations, but it is wrong for a politician to exploit that for the sake of political advantage, and to come along and suggest that the Government does nothing in regard to the matter, because the matter has two sides. The Government is dealing with public money here, and it is the Government’s responsibility, and not that of the hon. member for Orange Grove, to account to the taxpayer for the extent to which the Government is responsible for the rise in the cost of living. It is a spiral and the spiral is so great that if you touch one of the posts, you are touching numbers of them. Any increase in salaries affects not only the Public Service but even the private sector. Let us understand clearly what has been done here, in due course, after mature reflection. At the conclusion of his speech the hon. member for Orange Grove came forward and accepted what is being done here, with a homily intended for me to take to heart on behalf of the Government as to how we should act to enable this staff board to function effectively. I give the hon. member this assurance: This staff board has not been established as a sop to satisfy postal officials. The staff board has been established after mature reflection and it is intended that this staff board will function well. A task will be entrusted to it, and as the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has put it here, I shall be the first man to see to it, if this board resulting from this legislation does not function properly, that it does in fact function properly, even if it requires an amendment to the Act, but according to my information and according to the assurances I have, and according to the co-operation my colleague the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and I are going to establish in this connection, we shall find that this staff board will function for the benefit of that branch of the Public Service, but they definitely cannot function if they look to their own advantage only and lose sight of the general welfare of the Public Service. That is the only safety valve there is, and that is particularly what the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has said. This question of agreement disturbs her a little. She wants to know what will happen when there is disagreement; is the matter then to be referred back to the Public Service Commission? It does not seem to her that the staff board will actually have delegated powers. That is, however, the safety valve. Let us take only one example. Suppose these three members meet and resolve that they want to give officials of the Post Office a big increase of salary; or suppose they want to create a number of posts just to satisfy their people. That would have tremendous repercussions upon the Public Service as a whole, because then all the other public servants would demand this increase too. Supposing one of the members votes against it; then it must be referred to the Public Service Commission for a decision. There will be no delay, because it may be done telephonically. The staff board may be entrusted with great powers. We actually want to delegate as many powers as possible to it. It is not intended to be an inferior board, but the Public Service Commission must see to it that the whole Public Service as such is not upset in this way.

Then I agree.

The hon. member says she agrees. I am very pleased. The hon. member for Drakensberg has also referred to the medical aid scheme. The medical aid scheme, if made compulsory, functions in this way. Every member will have to make a monthly contribution. It is estimated that the R240,000 the State has pegged, will be sufficient to cover all the costs of the administration of this scheme. It will now have to be worked out what the officials will have to contribute monthly, to receive which services. This scheme is being devised in this manner, and it will again be submitted to the various staff associations to ascertain whether they are satisfied with the proposed medical services. In other words, the scheme must be an economic proposition. I just want to point out that if the Government does not peg its contribution—I emphasize this point, perhaps specially for the edification of my officials, because we are somewhat nervous about this matter, and particularly my colleague the Minister of Finance—the people may perhaps become somewhat reckless and extravagant. If deficits arise, they will simply appeal to the Government for assistance. There are medical schemes which are properly administered, where the annual contributions of the members are not too much, and which within their framework function splendidly and to good effect. This legislation does not provide for the manner in which the scheme must be administered, but in Clause 4 we are merely asking for the right to go further and to make the requisite inquiry. That is my reply also to the question of the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). He will see that Clause 4 provides—

That is all we seek the authority of Parliament for. The question of whether Coloureds are included is a matter, together with all the other matters mentioned here, that will be investigated. It is impossible to say at this stage already whether Coloureds will be included or excluded. I believe some provision will have to be made, and I hope that we shall receive the necessary guidance in regard to the manner in which the matter should be tackled.

I thank the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) for his positive contribution, and all the other hon. members on my side, too, for their positive contributions, and for their support of this Bill, support which the Bill really does merit. I hope that under these new arrangements a more efficient Service can be provided than is the case at present.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read the second time.

I move—

This Bill requires very little explanation. It does not follow that it is not important, but it is mainly a consolidation of Chapter III of the Livestock and Meat Industries Act of 1934. That Act is administered by the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing save for Chapter III, which actually is concerned more particularly with cattle improvement. Chapter III has always in the past been referred to as the “Cattle Improvement Act When the Department of Agriculture was divided into two Departments. Chapter III of the old Act was allotted to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. It has now been felt that we should submit to the House for its approval a Bill containing the provisions of Chapter III and a number of new provisions.

The most important changes made in this new Bill and which were not contained in Chapter III, are in the first place that we now definitely provide that in a proclaimed cattle improvement district there will no longer be inspection of pedigree cattle because our Studbook Association and Breeders’ Associations already maintain a very high standard. Those animals are now excluded. A second improvement is that the procedure we now propose for appeals is more satisfactory in my view. The procedure laid down in the old Act was that if anyone was not satisfied with the selection, he could appeal and then the appeal board consisted of, say, three cattle-farmers, but not necessarily farmers with particular knowledge of the specific strain in question. We are changing that now and we say that the appeal board shall consist of an official of the Department—he will of course be an official with a knowledge of cattle breeding—and two farmers who are not interested in that bull as such, but who are breeders of the same strain. I think they are better able to judge. The next important change provided for in this Bill as the control of imports and exports of breeding cattle. In the past that control was exercised under the War Measures Act, but it was only a currency control. We feel the time has arrived when we no longer just want currency control, but that we want the emphasis to fall upon quality cattle. That is the reason for our making this change. We have just about all the cattle strains of the world in South Africa. The majority of them have been bred by cattle-breeders’ associations and those associations are associated with the South African Studbook Association. We feel that our own cattle-breeders’ associations have made so much progress in recent years that we should have better control over the importation of cattle from other countries of the world, to ensure that inferior cattle are not imported.

I think there is a future for our exports of cattle to other parts of the world and to Africa as well. Cattle are in fact already being exported. If cattle are exported in order to build up a decent export market, and with the object in view of maintaining our reputation as a cattle-breeding country, there must be control over the quality of cattle we are prepared to have exported.

Those are the main amendments in this Bill, containing matter not contained in the old Act. The other provisions have been taken unchanged from the old Act, and will now be administered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. This Bill has been referred to the South African Agricultural Union and the South African Studbook Association and they have indicated their approval. In conclusion I may just say that when we shall apply control over imports and exports, it will always be done in the closest consultation with the South African Studbook Association.

We are also including control over eggs for hatching and poultry. I think that has become absolutely essential particularly when we remember how many representations the poultry association have already made to the Department during the past two years not only for protection, but to see to it that our poultry industry is not endangered by the importation of eggs for hatching and poultry of a quality which does not make a contribution to the development of that branch of our agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now said enough on the principle contained in this Bill. If it appears necessary, we may discuss the finer details at the Committee Stage.

This side of the House will support this legislation. As the Minister has rightly stated, the major part of this is law already. The amendments made improve the existing Act and these amendments will also receive the approval of this side of the House.

This Bill is definitely an improvement on the principal Act. I am very glad that it deals with our imports and exports. As the Minister said, in the past control was applied under the emergency regulations. In future control will be exercised in terms of Clauses 9 and 10 of this Bill. It will be of great assistance if our people do not buy stock overseas which they are not sure will be allowed to enter this country. We recently had a case where a Friesland bull was imported, which did not comply with our standards. That bull had to be sent back. I want to recommend to the Minister that the standard laid down for imported cattle—I am talking about Frieslands now—should be the minimum standards for bulls used in this country. It is no use to-day using a bull with a 3 per cent or 3.3 per cent butterfat if one aims at producing milk containing at least 3.5 per cent butterfat. We must tackle this matter. It is also provided that no bull in this country can be registered in the studbook unless he can get 75 per cent of the points. He must also have a certain percentage of butterfat. Although according to the figures we still do not have sufficient bulls in the country, I feel we should not allow just any bull to be used here which is not registered or whose mother has not been tested. I hope that many animals will not be allowed in for purposes of cross-breeding. At the moment there is a tendency to import any kind of animal, animals which are definitely no asset to this country. I think it is wrong just to import animals in order to cross them with our pure strains here. We should not allow just any type of animal to enter the country. It can do great harm to the breeds we have already built up. I feel that we sometimes harm the Afrikander cattle. The Afrikander is a breed which has been developed in this country. It is hardy and that is what we need. People sometimes import just any animal to cross it with the Afrikander. These crossbreeds are only good for one year if one wants to sell the progeny. Let us stick to the breeds we have tested here. We must be very careful not to import animals into this country which cannot adapt themselves to our conditions and which will harm the breeds that we have built up with so much trouble.

Sir, I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we are all in accord with him if he wants to maintain the standard of any stock exported or imported into this country. That is not the main point on which I want to address myself to the Minister. To start with I just want to say a few words about this definition of livestock: “Cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses, donkeys, poultry and any other kind of animal declared by the Minister to be livestock.” I want to take sheep as one example arising out of the hon. Minister’s suggestion that the Studbook Breeders’ Association might intervene at some time or other.

I sincerely hope that the Studbook Breeders’ Association will not interfere in this respect: There are certain parts of the country where they have established certain types of sheep which is most suited to that particular part of the country. I sincerely hope that the Association will not interfere there. That is extremely important to the grass veld areas throughout the country. That particular type of sheep has now been distributed to those areas where it is most suited.

Then I want to raise the question of the production of meat and the improvement of our cattle in this country with the Minister. Having presented one of the first petitions and living in a district which was the first to be proclaimed after the 1934 Act, I want to say to the Minister that that Act became one of the farces of this country notwithstanding the fact that many bulls were subsidized. Why did it turn out to be a farce? Because of its management. I want to suggest to the Minister that unless he is in a position to administer this Act better he cannot expect to derive benefit from it. Like other speakers I am prepared to admit that we have some of the finest bulls in the world in South Africa. I think it is our duty to protect them. Having said that I want to suggest that we have allowed the mongrelization of our cattle to go on in a manner in which we had no right to do. Notwithstanding that Act on the Statute Book that has gone on over the last 29 years, uninterrupted by any interference on the part of the Government. Since farming has become mechanized we have done away with the “trek-os”. We produce two types of animals in this country. A group of animals fall into each class. Those classes have to provide firstly, the milk supply of this country and, secondly, the meat supplies. Surely we can do something to improve the existing position. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he carries out what he intends to carry out, he must take note of a letter that was addressed to me and which I received this morning. It is stated in this letter that the stock inspector in the Kei Road area—he is stationed at Kei Road and this is a protest from the Kei Road farmers—is to be removed and his position is not to be filled; the veterinary office in King William’s Town is to be closed and the officer transferred elsewhere. Mr. de Wet, another officer there, is to be transferred to Middelburg, Cape, and his place not filled. Those are the men on whom the Minister has to depend for these inspections. You have sales that have to be attended; you have the tick menace to cope with. Bulls are brought to those sales and there is nothing in this Bill to prevent auctioneers from putting up those bulls “voetstoots” and selling them for slaughter. That has become part of the menace that has existed and dragged down the breeding of cattle in areas that were too anxious to improve their herds. Adequate provision is not made in this Bill to cope with that problem. Throughout South Africa, in all four of the provinces, you have large black spots within a district. What provision is there for control?

The Minister knows the type of cattle that are produced in those black spots. He knows that the fence is not going to stop that lower quality bull. I want to warn the hon. the Minister that he is wasting the time of this House and the time of the farmers of this country unless he is prepared to implement this Bill by having the requisite number of inspectors and unless he has the stock available to improve our herds. I want to make this plea to the Minister: Do not let this amending Bill develop into the same farce that Chapter III was in the past.

I also want to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the introduction of this Bill. Now that the responsibility rests solely on the Minister I hope he will see to it that it is administered with greater efficiency than the previous legislation of this nature. I am not much concerned about the threat of imported cattle to our herds in this country. I am concerned with the threat from our own scrub cattle. It is disgraceful that, after 300 years of occupation by Europeans of this country, the greater proportion of our cattle are classified as scrub. Even now Native stock is used as the foundation of most of the stock that comes onto our markets, i.e. the stock that is slaughtered. That is the reason why our meat is of such poor quality; I think it must be of the lowest quality in the world. I am not referring to specialized production, I am talking about our meat in general. Native cattle are slow maturing and they produce poor quarters. By introducing better bulls, to improve our beef, will still be a slow process to bring it up to the standard of our dairy herds. Our dairy herds rank with the best in the world. This demonstrates to the Minister what can be done in this country. But throughout our country where areas adjoin Native reserves one sees the influence of the Native cattle on the European herds. Something must be done; we cannot go on in this way. Those cattle eat just as much as the better type and their yield is very poor. They are slow-maturing and uneconomical. We want a quick-maturing animal which produces a good beef.

I also want to ask the Minister to pay more attention to our Cleansing Act. He should see to it that that is better administered because one of the reasons why our cattle are inferior is the fact that our people have sought the immunity which our Native herds enjoy against tick-borne diseases. It is because of that immunity that Native stock is used as a foundation to many of our beef herds in this country. If the Cleansing Act is more efficiently administered the position can be improved. It can be better administered; it has been proved in the case of the East Coast fever. We can wipe the tick out but we have never had a strong enough Government to enforce the legislation which it has in its hands. I do hope the Minister will pay due regard to this and realize that although he has the interests of our cattle herds at heart and although he wants to build up higher standards in this country, he must please remember that while we have tick-borne diseases we will always have, what they call in Afrikaans, a “remskoen” that will hinder the progress which this country merits as regards the stock we have.

I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for the support they have given this Bill. Its brevity and the fact that it is non-contentious do not, as I have said, mean that it is unimportant. It is an important measure. Hon. members have, however, spoken as if we have made no real progress during the past 26 years since the 1934 Act. As the hon. member for King William’s Town (Mr. Warren) said, no progress has been made because that Act was a “farce”. The fact remains that one cannot eradicate an evil by legislation alone. I make bold to say that our stock-breeding has made rapid progress during the past 26 years, of which we can be proud, notwithstanding the fact that we had this Act, which was perhaps not applied strictly enough. I think all the farmers in the country ought really to set themselves the ideal that no unregistered bull will be used anywhere in our herds, whether for milk production or for meat. That would be the ideal position. I realize, however, that we have not reached that position yet. There are not enough registered bulls of the various breeds of cattle to be able to reach that position. Hon members are quite correct in insisting that as far as possible this Bill should be applied more strictly. To do so one needs staff. I do not think that at this stage we have enough staff available to make the inspections as thorough as they should be. We do not really have inspectors specially to do this work; the selection of bulls is done by the extension officers. I want to appeal to our farmers to assist as far as possible these extension officers, who have so many duties to perform. I want to appeal to farmers to bring it to the notice of the extension officers if they know of cases in the vicinity where scrub bulls, which may not be used in terms of this legislation, are in fact used. If they do so, I think we will achieve more than we have achieved in the past. Reference has been made here to our milch herds. The reason why our milch herds are maintained at such a high standard is due to the good work of our breeders’ associations and the minimum standards laid down by them, and by the studbook associations for the registration of those cattle. There, also, we have not yet gone far enough. Under the new scheme the Department includes not only the registration and progeny tests in regard to our milch breeds, but they are also extending it to our meat breeds. One often finds that an animal which has a very good appearance and which is also registered does not necessarily pass on its good qualities to its progeny. With these tests we are doing I am sure that in future we will reach the stage where it will not be necessary for a man who wants to improve his herds to buy a bull without knowing its qualities, or how its qualities are likely to be transmitted to its progeny. I want to assure hon. members that I appreciate their support and that we will do everything in our power to give effect to the wishes expressed here in the interest of developing our cattle industry.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

This clause before the Committee is one which gives the power of delegation to the hon. Minister, whereby he can delegate his powers to the Secretary or any other senior officer. Now the question of delegating powers is one which we on this side of the House view with a certain degree of doubt in certain respects. In terms of the clause before us, it would seem that the Minister may delegate to the Secretary or any senior officer any of the powers conferred upon him by the Act, save the powers referred to in Sections 3, 6, 7, 10 and sub-section (1) of Section 35 or Section 37. Now, Mr. Chairman, if you look at the sections concerned in respect of which the Minister will not be able to delegate his powers, you will find that Section 3 deals with the establishment of retreats and rehabilitation centres, Section 6 with the establishment of the National Alcoholism Advisory Board, Section 7 with the appointment of boards of management of retreats and rehabilitation centres, Section 10 with the establishment of after-care hostels and sub-section (1) of Section 35 gives the Minister the power to enter into agreements in respect of persons in other parts of Africa, and Section 37 makes provision for the making of regulations. These are all very important sections, but the remaining sections in respect of which the Minister has power to delegate to the Secretary or any senior officer also includes very important provisions. I would like to ask the hon. Minister why for instance he would wish to have authority to delegate powers in regard to a section such as Section 5, which makes it possible to abolish a retreat or rehabilitation centre. In terms of this clause he is prevented to confer powers on the Secretary or any senior officer for the establishment of those retreats and rehabilitation centres, but at the same time he is permitted to confer these powers in respect of abolishing a retreat or rehabilitation centre as provided for in Clause 5. At the Committee Stage and also during the second-reading debate, we on this side of the House expressed concern of the fact that a person may be held in a retreat or rehabilitation centre without any means of appealing in certain circumstances, for a period of up to three years. Now in terms of Clause 26, which deals with the release on licence of inmates of retreats and rehabilitation centres, or the other provisions in regard to the transfer of inmates from a rehabilitation centre to a retreat of some other institution, or in terms of Clause 19 where the Minister may determine the period of detention and where he is empowered to discharge an inmate at any time prior to the expiration of the period of detention, the Minister has very great powers and these all-important clauses affect the detention of an inmate at an institution, and therefore it is most important that we should have some indication from the hon. Minister as to which of these powers he intends to delegate to the Secretary or any senior officer. I have in mind the danger of bureaucratic control of these institutions, and during the Committee Stage it was agreed that the definition clause (Clause 1) would stand over, and one of the reasons for the request that that clause should stand over was that the Minister should be enabled to give us some indication as to what type of officer he has in mind to whom he will delegate powers under the term “any other senior officer”. Similarly in subsection (2) of this clause the Secretary may delegate to any other senior officer the powers conferred upon him by the Act, and one of the powers that the Secretary has conferred upon him in terms of the Act is the transfer of inmates from one rehabilitation centre to another or from one retreat to another. I therefore would like to ask the hon. Minister if he could give some indication as to whom he has in mind when the Bill refers to “any other senior officer”, because under the definition clause “other senior officer” is not defined. The “Secretary” is defined, and here it mentions “other senior officer”, but no definition is given of “other senior officer”. To obviate discussion of the definition clause, I do hope that the Minister at this stage will be able to give us some indication in respect of the delegation of powers to “any other senior officer”.

The hon. member has asked me in respect of sub-section (1) what the meaning is of “Secretary or any other senior officer”. Now “other senior officer” is intended to mean senior administrative officials in the department, for instance the deputy secretary and under-secretaries who will deputize for the Secretary. If the delegation is only to the Secretary, the position would be impossible. It is necessary to give this power of delegation. It stands to reason that these other senior officers mentioned by me will have to take decisions on behalf of the Secretary or on behalf of the Minister in accordance with the policy which has already been laid down by the Minister himself. The purpose is only to relieve the Secretary of a certain volume of work. The hon. member will readily understand that it is a department which has a great volume of work and you cannot pile that whole volume of work on one man, the Secretary. He will have to make use of his senior officers. The same also applies to 36 (2). The object is purely administrative, from a practical point of view. It would be wrong to construe the clause in such a way as to convey an intention of minimizing the importance of the matters to be considered and decided upon. The hon. member also knows that ultimately the Minister has to lay down the policy in accordance with the powers given to him by the Act and he is ultimately responsible. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we shall do everything we can to administer the Act in such a way as to obtain the best results. As was correctly said by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) in his second-reading speech, we are faced with a difficult problem, we have to deal with difficult people and under difficult circumstances. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that we shall do our best for the people concerned. Something may go wrong here or there, but the doors of my Department will always be open for any member to come along and to draw my attention to what they think is going wrong. I repeat what I have said at the second reading, this is legislation for which we all feel responsible, and we will administer the Act in such a way as to obtain the very best results.

I may also say as regards to Clause 19, which deals with the discharge of inmates, that it stands to reasons that it would be impossible for the Minister himself to take care of the discharge of inmates, or even the Secretary. But yet I think we can give the assurance that great care will be exercised in the administration of the Act.

What about the power of abolition of retreats and rehabilitation centres?

I have not yet had time to consult the officials in regard to this provision, but I can tell the hon. member that this covers more institutions which are subsidized by the State, small institutions which may not be able to carry on. Therefore that power is necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 38.

I am sorry that it falls to my lot to have to draw attention to this clause. Up to now this Bill has been discussed on a very high, extremely high standard of professional thought and endeavour to benefit certain unfortunate individuals and to correct certain social evils. The whole spirit of the debate has been one of great co-operation. Where we have criticized, we hope we have criticized constructively. Where we have approved, we have approved because we felt that we are dealing with a Department which was activated through and through by a spirit of help, a spirit that having certain problems, and having very carefully studied those problems, it was faced with more than one serious social evil and that it had arrived at what it considered to be a solution. We felt also that here was something in respect of which we could co-operate, and something of which we could wholeheartedly approve. But now we come to the sting in the tail. We find a clause which basically becomes a political issue. We feel that this jarring clause is one which lays open the prospect of the four-stream policy of the Government and it brings into a semi-scientific and certainly a socialistic problem this jarring note, and it is for that reason that we will have to vote against this clause. We want this clause to be negatived.

Mr. Chairman, the evils which this Bill seeks to alleviate and the troubles which affect the people who will be looked after under this Bill is one of the most difficult problems imaginable. One of the most difficult problems with which the hon. Minister and his Department is going to be faced is a grave shortage of personnel. They have not a hope, Sir, of ever getting enough personnel. They can only do the best they can. They have no hope of ever having enough personnel, because I do not believe that in an ordinary nation such personnel exists in sufficient numbers. To carry out this work it is necessary to find people who not only are educated to carry out special types of work, but you have to find people who are dedicated enough to devote their lives to it. and it is there that you have your difficulties—the combination of those two factors, the dedication of these people and the knowledge which is required of them, combined with the fact that you are dealing with difficult people. Now this clause places us in the position that the small personnel available can at the whim of the Government be divided by four. That is really what it amounts to. There are certain aspects of life in this country that can be divided up. I do not wish to take any part in a racial argument at the moment, but I do say this that there are other portions of government which cannot be divided up, and one of them is health. It is not possible to divide health racially. The mosquito, as I have said before, takes no notice of the colour of a skin. Now, Sir. we are dealing with health here. It happens to fall under the Department of Social Welfare, and it is going to be handled by them, and I am sure it will be handled as well as possible. But it can only be handled as a whole. It can only be handled throughout the country as a single whole. There is no prospect of a non-White team being found within the foreseeable future. There is not one single Coloured psychiatrist in the country and there is little likelihood of there being one for many years. There is not one single occupational therapist who is non-White. And if you are going to have this division, if you are going to take the few dedicated persons that we have and divide them by four, then, Sir, we might as well not pass the Bill, because it is doomed to failure.

The attitude of the hon. member surprises me, because it is very clear to me that he is unaware of the developments which have taken place in South Africa. Had he been aware of them he would have known that there was already a subsection of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development dealing with social welfare, and that juvenile crimes, etc., in the Bantu areas were the responsibility of that sub-section. If these persons have to be cared for in institutions in Bantu areas it is necessary for us to have this clause. It will be necessary if such institutions are established later on. The hon. member must take the fact into account that the administration of most of the activities of other Departments in the Bantu areas have been transferred to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Take prisons, for example. They are now building prisons in the Bantu areas and certain of the functions will eventually be transferred to the section of Bantu Administration concerned. I am convinced that the sub-section dealing with social work of the Department of Bantu Administration will also have to take over the responsibility of caring for these people in the Bantu areas, in which case it will be necessary to have this clause. The hon. member said that this debate had been conducted at a high level. I am sorry that a false note has been struck, but that false note does not come from this Bill or from the Minister or from this side of the House, but the hon. member, who does not know of the new developments which have taken place in our country must be blamed for it.

I want to make it quite clear that I am not only opposed to this clause on political grounds, grounds of total separation, but also on scientific grounds. It is all very well for the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) to tell us that there is a certain amount of development taking place in the Bantu areas and that in due course the Bantu areas will take over their own work and look after this type of situation. It is absolutely important in this type of work to firstly keep it under one Department and not separate the work. I said during my second-reading speech that the hon. Minister of Social Welfare must keep this Department and the work of this Department in its entirety under his own wing, that he must not delegate his powers to other Ministers. Because he is not only going to have a separation of classes of people, but the whole object in treating these people is going to fail if he does. He cannot hope to be successful unless he has control over the whole organization that is going to look after retreats and rehabilitation centres, irrespective of the colour of the inmates. The reason for this is that first of all it is specialized work, and I told the hon. Minister that he will have to import skilled people to do this type of work, and not only will they have to do the type of work that will be required but they will have to teach the people here in this country how to do this type of work. It is not the simple problem of keeping a group of people occupied in one particular occupation in a retreat or rehabilitation centre. There is far more to it than that. We are getting away from the principle of work colonies here.

Order! The hon. member is also getting away from the clause.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. If we are going to carry out the wishes of the hon. Minister then it becomes important to have a concentration of effort by one Department and not a separation, either because of political positions in this country, because of apartheid legislation, but also because we have to use the skills that are available. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (Central) we have not got enough personnel to do the work even if we concentrate our efforts under one Department. We have got to preserve every person who knows anything about rehabilitation in the Social Welfare Department, and if the hon. Minister is going to dissipate its energies, and if he is going to give away his powers to other Departments, he is going to fail. The hon. member for Heilbron said that in the Bantu areas they will establish similar institutions. I take it that that was what the hon. member meant. But what about the areas in the White areas which contain very large numbers of non-White people? Let us take the south-western areas of Johannesburg where you have to deal with this problem more than in the Transkei or any Bantustan. There I say the Minister must have control over such an organization in these large areas and it must be one control, and he must not hand it over to any other Minister, whether it be the Minister of Health or the Minister of Bantu Administration or the Minister of Coloured Affairs. It is his job to see this thing through. He started it, and I say to him that he must not divide up his energies. If he wants to achieve success, then he must keep this thing together. Then he will have success. Otherwise the whole object of the Bill will be dissipated, it is going to be spoiled. There will be one type of treatment in one centre and another type in another centre. Groups will be treated according to their colour, and the purpose of this Bill will be defeated.

I wish to support the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), because I am totally opposed to this clause. This clause if implemented in its present form would split up the staff resources under the Minister’s Department and under this four-stream policy, mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (Central), they would be divided and the shortage of staff that the hon. Minister has in his Department at the moment would make it impossible to cope with this problem. With due respect I maintain that the implementation of this Bill must be under the control of one Minister and one Department. This clause as it now stands will divide the responsibility and as the hon. member for Durban (Central) said earlier, it is unfortunately the implementation of the Government’s policy which leads to this undesirable position. This four-stream policy in regard to Bantustans, the policy of divide and rule, should play no part in the healing of the sick; the treatment of the alcoholics and the maladjusted is specialized work and it should be under the control of only one Minister and one Department. Otherwise the delegation of functions and powers will result in departmental chaos and it will seriously hamper the successful working of this otherwise essential Bill. Therefore, I ask the hon. Minister very seriously to consider the dropping of this clause as advocated by this side of the House, and to bring the control back into the hands of the Department of Social Welfare where it should remain.

I listened with interest to hon. members and I now have a few problems. I hope hon. members will appreciate those problems. In the first place I found it strange that hon. members on all sides of the House were all agreed that this was an extremely important Bill—I welcomed that—and repeatedly said that this was a good Bill. What I find strange is this that if it is such a good Bill as hon. members would make us believe, why do they object to it that the principles of the same good Bill should apply in the case of the non-White races? Why do they want a different kind of Bill? If this clause is not accepted we shall have to neglect all the other races. If it is accepted there will be delegation of power with consultation. You will then have this advantage that this good Bill will gradually be transferred to the administrations to which it has been delegated. You will be giving them a chance to do these things also as far as the non-White races are concerned on the basic principle of this same Bill. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has seen politics in this matter. This Bill has been discussed as being of a non-political nature, as a Bill which is mainly concerned with the rehabilitation of those people whom we are trying to save in this Bill. How can the hon. member, as far as the last clause is concerned, accuse us of having come forward with a Bill of a political nature? Surely that is not so and it is inconsistent to come forward with such an argument at this stage. I have a third difficulty. Every member who has referred to this matter has spoken about the shortage of staff and stated that we could not cope with the position because of that shortage. I want to ask them this: If we bring in the non-Whites under the same Department and the same staff will there not also be a shortage of staff? Surely the shortage will be much more acute in that case. That argument therefore falls away completely. If I were to accept this amendment and drop the clause it will mean that the activities and duties of everybody will be co-ordinated under the control of one Department with the staff it has available at the moment and we shall be placing more people under those which already have a shortage. I think that is a contradiction. I said at the outset that basically this Bill, as well as the proposed Bill contained in the report of the Select Committee, was based on the 1949 Act. I said we were only departing from it inasmuch as we were making a new classification in order to separate those people whom we do not want to punish but whom we really wanted to rehabilitate. That Act has been on the Statute Book since 1949.

That legislation was introduced in this House for the first time in 1945. Various other Social Welfare Acts, for example the Children’s Act, the Old Age Pensions Act, the Blind Persons Act. the War Veterans’ Pension Act and the Disability Grants Act, all contained similar provisions. Are hon. members really in earnest when they ask me to delete that clause? What is the position going to be then? Must I undertake to come to Parliament then to see that all these Acts are amended? It is impossible and uncalled for. Hon. members know, as I told them right from the very start, that welfare services on behalf of different races and groups are at the present moment being administered by different Ministers. That is the policy of the Government. It is necessary for the functions of this Act to be assigned to several Ministers. As the position is at present the present Act is in fact already being administered by the Department of Coloured Affairs in respect of Coloured persons who can be committed to the work colony for Coloureds at Kraaifontein. The administration of that section is already entrusted to the Department of Coloured Affairs. Work colonies for Bantu have not yet been established, but the hon. member for Heilbron told us that they are considering establishing them. I cannot see why it should follow any other pattern but the pattern of this Bill, which hon. members said was a very good Bill. For those reasons I am sorry that I cannot accept the amendment. I cannot do so unless I am prepared to let the whole Bill go.

I greatly regret that the Minister has not seen fit to accept our suggestions because he firstly said he had three problems and asked us on this side to give him a solution. Our motion gave him the solution, to use the available talent for this work to the greatest advantage of all the people in the country. I must say that he did not give us the impression in his second-reading speech that this was purely a Bill for White people. [Interjections.] That is what the Minister says now. He says he will use his Department, which is the only existing Department in the country with any knowledge and skill and know-how, and we are terribly short of staff, but he is going to abandon the rest of the country. That is what it amounts to. He steers this Bill through Parliament and then says he will keep his own people and they will not be used for anything else or for any other race. For that purpose, as I have said, there is no other personnel in the country and the Minister knows it, and he knows he cannot get any other personnel, and he has not denied what I have said to him, that a shortage exists. I say he should use what he has for as many as possible, for the greatest good.

I want to oppose the plea made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) because it will create the wrong impression in the country and one which we certainly cannot allow to remain. He suggests that we are going to use the available staff to look after the White people only. That is the sort of thing we know is eagerly taken up in the world outside and shouted from the rooftops. Surely that is not the intention. He created the impression that this particular provision which confers certain powers of delegation on to the Minister was already being applied in such a way that only Whites were assisted. That is certainly not the intention of the clause. All the races will be looked after with the staff available. At the moment we already have a system of apartheid in certain institutions where the races are not mixed and they are treated by the staff which is available there. But to the extent to which those institutions are transferred to the Bantu areas for example, to the extent to which the Bantu can be treated in their own areas, and to the extent to which we acquire the staff for it, to that extent will this delegation of power take place but not in the way in which the hon. member puts it, namely, that we want to throw all those who are not White to the wolves.

Clause 38 put and the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dӧnges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotze, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree. G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wall, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and D. J. Potgieter.

NOES—37: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cadman, R. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff. de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.: Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 1 and 18 standing over, which were put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a second time.

This Bill amends the Mental Disorders Act, No. 38 of 1916. This is not a contentious Bill and I hope the whole House will support it. The first amendments in this Bill are to those sections whose objects are more or less the same, i.e. Sections 8, 15, 18, 25, 44, 49, 50, 63 and 77 of the principal Act. The object is to simplify the formalities patients to our mental institutions have to comply with and to eliminate unnecessary forms. The House will remember that up to about 25 years ago we could do practically nothing for our mentally disordered people. But over the past 25 years great progress has been made in the treatment of mentally disordered people. Prior to that the only thing you could really do with mentally disordered persons was to keep them in custody; we could only lock them up and unfortunately those institutions were regarded as sort of prisons. One can understand, Sir, that where people were held in custody in those circumstances it was necessary to make very careful arrangements to ensure that such persons were not held in custody unnecessarily. For that reason the control measures were very involved and reports and certificates had to be sent to and fro from one official to the other. Thus we had the magistrate, the Attorney-General, the Master, the Commissioner of Mental Health and the Judges. Every one of them had to exercise some control or other to ensure that there were no abuses.

Over the past 25 years, however, because of the revolutionary change in the treatment of mentally disordered persons and the wonderful drugs which have come on to the market it so happens that we are able in some of our hospitals to discharge 70 per cent and even 100 per cent of the cases which come in annually. If 3,000 cases come in we discharge 70 per cent up to 100 per cent of them. That means that our mental fitness institutions are no longer prisons to-day, but hospitals in the truest sense of the word, except those for a certain type of patient, namely, the patient who is mentally disordered and a criminal at the same time, the psychopath. We are now suggesting simplified measures of control and the elimination of unnecessary formalities in this Bill, but only in the case of the patient who is not a psychopath. These suggestions emanate from our O. and M. officials, who carefully went into the matter of what those simplifications should be. The suggestions were also submitted to the Judges-President of the four provinces, the Attorneys-General, the magistrates. the Commissioner for Mental Health and the doctor/managers of the various institutions, who have all agreed with them. We have made quite sure that nothing is eliminated which is in any way a guarantee of the person’s freedom.

The second series of amendments are those dealing with Section 87. Up to the present the manager of an ordinary hospital has been called a medical superintendent, but the manager of a mental hospital has been called a doctor/manager. I have pointed out in previous years that we wanted to try to make the public view our mental institutions in the same light as any hospital. Mental institutions are hospitals in the good sense of the word, but specialized hospitals. We want to try to remove that vestige of a stigma which has developed over those years when we could not do anything for mentally disordered people. We want the public and the medical world to regard the mental institutions as hospitals in which doctors can specialize and work, and to which the ordinary public, if they have the slightest symptom of a mental disorder, can feel at liberty to come for treatment as in the case of any hospital. In order to achieve that we have decided to remove as far as possible all the differences between the two hospital systems, the general hospitals and the mental hospitals, gradually and systematically. One of the minor amendments is that we also want to make the appellations the same as in the case of ordinary hospitals. This Bill provides that where the head of a mental institution was usually called doctor/manager, he will in future be called the medical superintendent. This is a minor amendment, but very often these small things are of great psychological value.

There is another minor amendment in Section 87. During those years that we could do so little for our mental disordered persons the doctor/manager was also mainly the psychiatrist. There were not many psychiatric services he could perform, because you could hardly do a thing for those people. With the passage of time, however, we have been able to do such a great deal for those people that the psychiatric services have assumed greater proportions. We have now reached a stage where the managers of hospitals feel that they can no longer do all the work themselves and where the head of the hospital should have the right to delegate some of his functions to other psychiatrists.

The final amendment is also of a minor nature. Clause 7 of the Bill amends Section 44bis. You will remember, Sir, that up to the present all our mental patients have been treated in our hospitals. We passed amending legislation in 1961 which provided for the establishment of out-patients’ clinics at hospitals, and the idea was, as I explained at the time, to get people with mental problems at the hospital as early as possible, where they could receive treatment and return home. It was provided that out-patients’ sections should only be attached to our hospitals. We deliberately did not make it general at the time, because general hospitals fall under the provinces, and we did not want to do anything that might give the impression that we wanted to interfere with provincial hospitals without their co-operation. I must, however, say this to the credit of the provincial authorities that many of them have already co-operated with us in a very fine spirit, and we feel the time has arrived for us to make this minor amendment in terms whereof we shall be able to ask for the right not only to establish these out-patients’ sections at our own hospitals, but elsewhere as well. These amendments which I am suggesting are of a minor nature, but they may ultimately have far-reaching effects and I hope to be able to depend on the co-operation of the whole House.

We are pleased to receive and to support this Bill. We feel that it will be to the advantage of the country as a whole and of those who are mentally disturbed. It is an effort to modernize the treatment of the mentally disturbed. It is something for which my colleague on my right and I have fought ever since we have been in the House. I do not think there has been one year that we have not asked that the Mental Health Act should be revised, and while approving of the Bill, I say that it would be much to the advantage of the country and of the people if the Minister would seriously consider modernizing the whole Act. This piecemeal biting at the cherry, as he has done in the last three years is good, but it is not good enough. Sir, there have been three great efforts from the Department of Health in the last few years, for two of which we take credit on this side. The one initiated by the Minister himself was the campaign against poliomyelitis with its great success about which I think we will have to talk later, because I do not think we have seen the end of it yet. The other is this Mental Health Act, and I understand from the daily papers that the Minister has at last, thanks to our protestations and no doubt also the protestations of his own officers, decided to initiate a widespread B.C.G. inoculation against tuberculosis. This Bill, as the hon. the Minister has said, simplifies the paper work. Unfortunately, we only received the Bill within the last 24 hours, and the paper work connected with the certifying of patients and caring for patients is rather more legal than medical, and it would take us a little time with our legal helpers to arrive at a conclusion as to whether these changes which are designed for the protection of the patient and for the patient’s personal liberty, are still adequate, but that we will probe in the Committee Stage. What I want to approve above all things is the co-operation which the Minister assures us is taking place between his Department and the provincial hospitals. An effort on which we are immensely keen is to bring the so-called mentally disturbed out of the lunacy idea into the category of generally sick patients; to make available to the people of this country the best treatment which is available and which is to be had in the private sector which is ready to help the hon. the Minister through the general hospitals of the country. Sir, this Bill also does something else. Although the hon. the Minister did not really speak seriously on it, it enforces what I personally have begged for over and over again; it enforces the segregation of the criminal psychopath. Up till now the criminals have been nursed side by side with and in the same institutions as the ordinary mentally disturbed, and this has had a deleterious effect on the nursing and the care of all the other patients, because it only requires one psychopath in a hospital to convert that hospital from a therapeutic, more or less open institution into a custodial institution, and it is that custodial factor which has militated through and through against the opening up of these hospitals. I personally welcome with great pleasure the idea that the Minister will now in some way or other, segregate the psychopaths. Lastly, arising from this legislation, through as an indirect effect and one which probably the Minister could not be expected to foresee, we will now be able to give care and attention to those lost people who were neither physically ill nor so mentally disturbed that they could be put into mental hospitals, those unfortunate neurotics for whom nobody cared. Their care will now be unavoidable; they must receive attention, because if the Mental Health Department does not accept them, the general hospital doctors will have to attend to them. I think this is a great step forward, and, as I say, we welcome this Bill.

I want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), but at the same time I want to express my thanks to the Secretary for Health, Dr. Clark and his assistant, for the help which they have given us in interpreting the provisions of this amending Bill. It has made our task much easier in view of the fact that the Bill only reached us during the last few hours.

Sir, the way I see this Bill is from the point of view of the patient, the point of view of the relatives of the patient, and the position in which the nursing staff is now going to be placed. I think one of the most important remarks which the hon the Minister made was in regard to the status which the new hospital is now going to enjoy. It is no longer going to be associated with places of detention for lunatics, as we used to consider it in days gone by. That phase of outlook, of looking upon a mentally deranged person as always a danger, has passed. We have reached the stage now where we are prepared to keep a mentally deranged person in a specialized hospital or if possible treat him in an out-patients’ department of a hospital belonging to a province. This is a very, very great step forward. It shows immediately that the stigma which used to attach not only to the patient but also to his family when he suffered from a mental disease has passed completely. I am very pleased indeed that we have now reached the stage in the treatment of mental patients where we can consider all people who need medical help on the same level.

There are a couple of problems here which we will have to deal with, but before I go on to deal with them I want to say that I think the problem of finding nursing staff for mental hospitals is going to be much easier for those people who have had the burden of recruiting nurses. I saw, when I was working in a mental hospital, what difficulty was experienced not only in recruiting male and female staff for the mental hospital but also in keeping them at the hospital. It was understandable because the treatment in those days was entirely different from the present-day treatment. There was not the turnover in patients that we have to-day. To-day people go in for treatment and come out more quickly than they would if they went into a general hospital for the setting of a broken leg. The whole picture of treatment has altered, and the nursing staff no longer runs the risk that it used to do. The days of segregating the very violent are over; we can deal with them much more easily to-day. It no longer presents any great problem and the physical danger to the nursing staff has virtually disappeared. I think the problem of the Department of Health now is going to be to emphasize the change in nursing status which will come about with the change not only in the name of the hospital and in the title of the superintendent of the hospital, but with the change in the type of treatment which is being given to mentally deranged persons. They will now be treated in the same way as ordinary ill persons. We should no longer have to differentiate as far as status is concerned between the ordinary sister or the ordinary nurse and the mental nurse, and I hope that the day will come very soon when the blue tab of the nursing staff in a mental hospital will be taken off and replaced with a maroon one. That differentiation should disappear as soon as possible. We should let our nursing staff know that there is no difference in status, either socially or in the Department, between the ordinary nursing staff in an ordinary provincial hospital and the nursing staff in a Government institution. Even the word “institution” must be done away with, if possible. Let us keep on calling these hospitals from now onwards hospitals for special treatment. As the Minister has said, it is a hospital where specialists will deal primarily with a special type of illness. Let us carry on along those lines and gradually we will bring them all on to the same level. I am hoping that the day will come when suitable financial arrangements will be made so that we can hand over the work which is at present being done by the Minister’s Department in dealing with mental diseases to the provinces as well, so that there will be no differentiation in treating illness, whether it be mental illness or physical illness. Doctors no longer look upon these differences as being differences which justify not only separate hospitals but separate compartments in our own country, one dealt with by the provinces and one dealt with by the Government. They should all be under the same Department, if possible. I think that the decision to allow the provinces to have their own out-patients’ departments is a step in the right direction. I know how the psychiatrists feel. They are very keen to get on with the job; they want to help as much as possible because they are enthusiastic about the results that they have been getting. It is no longer a dead-end disease. As a result of the excellent results that these people are getting in treating the mentally sick, they are keen to get these patients to help them and to get them back to work again.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I do not propose to deal with other problems. We can rather deal with them in the Committee Stage but I do want to have one point clarified. Is there going to be a financial arrangement between the provinces and the Central Government in relation to the upkeep of the out-patients departments, and what is going to happen if it becomes necessary for the provincial hospitals to keep a mentally ill person in the provincial hospital for any length of time up to, say, 14 days? Will the Central Government be responsible for the costs? The complication that I see is that in provincial hospitals there is an almoner system in existence which determines the cost of treatment and stay to the patients. If they come in with a note from a doctor asking for psychiatric treatment, then they are not charged by the province. Perhaps the Minister will tell me in his reply who is going to be responsible for the cost. It is a matter which should be settled as soon as possible, and if nothing has been done in the matter, perhaps the Secretary for Health can make arrangements with the provinces as soon as possible to get this point settled. But let me say once again that as far as I am concerned I welcome this legislation. I hope it will work well. I see no danger in that regard and I can only hope that we will have sufficient personnel to look after the mentally sick and that our hospitals will no longer suffer from shortages of staff.

I would like to associate myself with my colleagues in welcoming the implementation of the request from this side of the House over the past years to widen the scope of the Mental Disorders Act. I myself would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Durban (Central) in asking for a modernization of the Act. I feel that there are many points in this Bill that I would like to raise in the Committee Stage, but at this stage I wish to confine myself to the principle of one clause in particular, Clause 7, dealing with the extension of outpatients’ departments. I welcome this extension of the amendment that the hon. the Minister put forward in 1961. We in South Africa are well in the forefront in the matter of the treatment of mental illness, and here I would like to pay particular tribute to the Tara Hospital in Johannesburg, which deals with non-certifiable cases. The medical superintendent of this hospital has been elected to the World Council of Mental Health for the work he has done here in South Africa, and the matron of this hospital has recently been awarded the much-coveted Florence Nightingale medal of the Red Cross Society. I think that speaks for itself. Since its establishment in 1945 the Tara Hospital has made vast strides forward in the rehabilitation of the non-certifiable cases. Sir, I feel that it is not only Tara Hospital, but all those who have been interested in mental health over these last years, who have been advocating the extension of out-patients’ departments as envisaged in Clause 7 of this Bill. It is easier to cure patients in the early stages in outpatients’ departments. The patient presents himself there in the same hospital, in the general hospital, as the other out-patients’ departments are situated there. He will present himself without any stigma. He will go in much as a man might go in with a sore foot or a woman perhaps with an arm which has been giving her trouble. There will be no stigma attached to these patients when they go in to receive advice and treatment for the disease from which they are suffering. But in this connection I should like to ask the Minister whether he is considering the question of establishing mobile units in the future. I know that in 1961 in the Other Place when the Minister’s amendment to the Mental Disorders Act was discussed, the question was put there as to whether mobile units would not simplify the classification of the mentally deranged patients, and I would like to know from the Minister whether he is considering the question of extending this in the future. Sir, there are several questions that I would like to ask in connection with this out-patients’ department. How more effective does the Minister feel these clinics are going to be? Are they going to be more effective as far as staff is concerned? The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) has already mentioned the case of nurses trained for mental work. I would like to raise the question of the training of psychiatrists. I feel that the answer to the question of the training of psychiatrists to-day is simple. There are too few being trained and the speciality is not attractive enough as a career. Is the hon. the Minister considering the question of stepping up the training of psychiatrists? Where will these out-patients’ clinics be situated? Will they be attached to general hospitals in the urban and platteland areas? Will they be distributed throughout South Africa, and will these hospitals be accessible for treatment; will extensions be made so that this service will be readily available everywhere to the population of South Africa? In conclusion I wish to say that I welcome these extensions to the Act and I hope that the hon. the Minister will give favourable consideration to further extensions and to modernizing the entire Act in the near future.

There are just a few questions which I would like to answer at this stage. One is the question raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) with regard to the question of payment for the costs of treatment. The position may be changed later on but the arrangement between us and the provinces is that we supply the psychiatric services and the provinces supply the accommodation and the nursing staff. That arrangement can always be changed and will naturally be changed as time goes on.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) wants to know whether we are considering the question of the establishment of mobile units. Seeing that we are only at the first stage of the development of our outpatients’ services for mental health, it is rather early to decide at this stage what steps will be taken in the future. At the present moment I can only say that we are developing these mental health clinics at the general hospitals and perhaps at other places where we find it convenient to do so. Later on we will decide on further extensions. The hon. member also wants to know whether we are not stepping up the training of specialist psychiatrists. I think the hon. member knows the great difficulty we have had in the past in getting sufficient psychiatrists. In the last year or two we have been singularly fortunate. All our posts have been filled at our hospitals and in addition we have on our staff 11 specialists and at the various institutions another 22 are being trained. We hope that we will shortly be able to have a staff of 32 specialists. Naturally we intend extending the number. It is absolutely essential for modern treatment that we should have more psychiatrists and for that reason we are trying to place our mental hospitals on all fours with the ordinary hospitals. In that way we are persuading young medical men to take up psychiatry a field which they would otherwise have looked upon as not falling within the sphere of an ordinary medical practitioner. We have succeeded very largely and I hope that as a result of the amendments which are being made by means of this measure we shall continue to have success in that direction.

How many hospitals are without psychiatrists? There are 11 psychiatrists, but how many hospitals are without psychiatrists?

I understand six, but some of our hospitals have more than one psychiatrist.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Before I begin, Mr. Chairman, would you be good enough to indicate whether we can discuss Vote 49 also at this stage, that is, the Police Vote.

The hon. member must confine himself to the Justice Vote. At the beginning of the debate on the Justice Vote I permitted a short discussion on prisons but that was for a special reason. I think the hon. member should confine himself to Justice.

Sir, at the outset I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a statement which has been made recently, the purport of which is most serious. It affects the policy of this Minister particularly. I refer to a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on 13 May 1963 when he said this—

That is the quotation to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention, and I wish to draw his attention particularly to the portion of the speech in which it is stated that more than one of the murders “had been planned by Whites”, and to the portion of the speech in which he said that he was very keen “to mention the names here”, that is to say, in the place where he was speaking. Sir, two aspects emerge from that statement. Firstly, that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration knew the names of the persons concerned in those murders, and secondly that he knew the names of White persons concerned in more than one murder in the Transkei. Whichever way one looks at this, it reveals a situation which is most serious—not only that White people are behind these murders, but that White people are behind murders of this kind, and we all know the kind to which the hon. the Minister was alluding. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister of Justice whose Vote we are now considering would give the Committee a full and clear and explicit answer to the question which the country is entitled to ask in this regard. They are, first: Is this true; secondly: Who are the persons concerned? Thirdly: How many are there of these White people instigating matters of this kind? Have these people been charged with any offence? Have they been convicted, and, if so, how many and of what offences have they been convicted? Alternatively, if no charges have been made, then the House and the country are entitled to know why not? I assume that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration has told the Minister of Justice everything he knows in this regard. If he has not, of course, this hon. Minister always has the aid of Section 17 of the General Law Amendment Act of 1963, should that be necessary.

There has been, from time to time, some, what one could describe as loose-talk in high places of things of this kind, i.e., that this or that disturbance is being fostered by White people. It is very seldom unfortunately that the people making those statements substantiate them. That is regrettable because if statements of that kind are made and unsubstantiated they amount to threats with which to sway political opinion and that is wrong; it is irresponsible. I am not saying that it is done in this instance but I am saying that if it is done and it is unsubstantiated then that is what it amounts to. If it is substantiated then it shows that we have a most serious state of affairs to contend with and the country should be told just how serious that is by details being given to it. This is a specific instance which I have put to the hon. the Minister directly, I hope clearly and I believe in a calm manner. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to it in that spirit, directly, explicitly and calmly. If we can have an answer from the Minister in that spirit I am sure the House and the country will be glad to hear it.

The other point I wish to raise at this stage is the question of fire-arms. I bring it to the attention of the Minister at this stage because we are dealing with Justice and Justice policy. I believe it is far too easy for people to get fire-arms. After all, almost any White man in South Africa can buy a fire-arm on the mere presentation of a certificate in which two people refer to him as a man of good character. If there is a number on the fire-arm, and there is on most fire-arms, the district code is not stamped on it. If he goes to another district, there being an absence of a central registry at the present time—I am conscious of the fact that the Minister has made some statement in that regard—the police cannot trace that fire-arm should it be transferred to somebody else short of searching through all the district registers throughout the country which is an impossible task. I believe there should be a periodic check on the possession of fire-arms otherwise they can be transferred, lawfully or unlawfully, at will, and there is no possible check on fire-arms being transferred from a man who is legally entitled to have them into the hands of somebody who is not legally entitled to have them. I believe there ought to be compulsion as far as reporting the loss of a fire-arm is concerned. That loss should be reported in the form of an affidavit made within a specific time after the loss of that fire-arm. All these things will enable the police to check up on fire-arms and to keep some control over them. I believe there ought to be a periodic census of fire-arms wherein it is enumerated who has what. I say this because we spend a great deal of money in certain parts of the country, in the Native Reserves in particular, on maintaining a fire-arm squad, which does a very good job of work, and who, every year, in combing the reserves, produces hundreds and hundreds of illegally owned and possessed fire-arms. If we are living in times of stress—I believe that recent utterances of hon. Minister and others have indicated that this is so—quite clearly it is most important that there be a stern check on the wrongful possession of fire-arms and the wrongful transfer of fire-arms from somebody who is entitled to somebody who is not entitled to possess a fire-arm. I am afraid the White people of South Africa are often to blame in this regard through sheer carelessness or neglect. There is something to be said for the statement by a senior officer of the C.I.D. in the Cape some weeks ago that it should be made a criminal offence. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) in view of the fact that he put his questions to the Minister who is better able than I to reply to them. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the Secretary for Justice on the improved report he has submitted to us. We complained in the past about the roneoed report which was distributed not only in this country but overseas as well. Today we have a neat and attractive report. I am pleased that he has acceded to that request of ours. I notice from this report that training schools have been established by the Department and that some of the officials sometimes gather there for 5½ months to receive training in the subjects of the Public Service law examination. In view of the fact that it has apparently become customary to put questions to the Minister I also want to ask him a few. I want to ask him this, namely, whether this school is only there for the benefit of the Department of Justice or whether it is also at the disposal of the other Departments. If it is only there for the Department of Justice I should like to plead for it that other Departments should also be allowed to avail themselves of that opportunity because there is a great shortage of magistrates and prosecutors. This is the only way in which the Department of Justice will succeed in training people and if they come from other Departments as well it is all the better. We know the magistrates are over-worked. Last year quite a number of them died from coronary thrombosis, particularly on the platteland where they are also receivers of revenue and have to undertake all sorts of other work. The more people we train the more can we relieve the magistrates of the manifold duties which rest upon their shoulders.

There is something else which worries me and that is the position of the legal advisers in the Department of Justice. At the present moment there are 12 legal advisers six of whom come to Cape Town during a parliamentary session. The other six remain in Pretoria and do the work of other Departments. We know it is the duty of these legal advisers to draft the legislation which comes before Parliament and to give opinions to other Departments in respect of matters which may give rise to court cases. I have noticed that the same legal advisers have been coming to Cane Town over the past years and that their ranks have not been replenished. The present senior legal adviser will retire shortly and the one who will take his place will also retire on pension before the end of next year. Those two people have years of experience in the drafting of bills and it will be very difficult to replace them. I should like to know what is being done in connection with our legal advisers so as to ensure that the work of Parliament does not suffer. During the past year more than 100 Bills were introduced of which 90, I think, were placed on the Statute Book. That shows you, Sir, what amount of work they do during the five or six months they are here. Where two are retiring within the next year and where it will take some time for their successors to get au fait with the drafting of bills, I should like to know from the Minister whether something cannot be done so that we will attract more outsiders. I do not think a practicing advocate would care to do this work. If he is in a position to do it he would demand a much higher salary than the salary paid to a legal draftsman. I understand they are just ordinary officials although they are on a higher scale. However, it is not a post which anybody with a B.A., LL.B. degree wants to occupy. It is a very demanding post. They continually have to work in the evenings so that the machinery of Parliament can function smoothly. I should very much like their position to be reviewed and special attention to be given to it during the coming year. I might just say that I have not spoken to one of them about this nor has anyone of them spoken to me. This does not emanate from them; it emanates from me personally. I do not want to say anything more at this stage; I hope I shall have another opportunity at a later stage.

I should like to pursue the request made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) last Friday …

I shall reply to that after 8 o’clock.

I want to pursue that request and ask the hon. Minister to give a comprehensive review of the action which has been taken under the various powers which have been granted to his Department, powers which are normally exercised in a state of emergency. Members of this House and also of the public are really solely dependent on Press reports as to what is currently happening in pursuance of these extraordinary powers which have been entrusted to officials of the hon. Minister’s Department. I believe that the Press is doing a service to the public in that regard, but this matter cannot be settled thereafter merely by the process of questions and answers in this House. I think members of this House and the country are entitled to an authoritative report by the Minister in regard to this important matter. As is obvious from the Minister’s interjection he accepts that this is a suitable opportunity to make a statement. What I have in mind is that there should be some sort of up-to-date summary of what has transpired, say, over the past 12 months in regard to such matters as to the number of persons who have been arrested for what I would call offences against the State or offences against the security of the State. It would, of course, be very helpful if one could have some sort of indication as to the numbers on some sort of regional basis. The regional basis which comes to mind would be the areas of jurisdiction of the several Attorneys-General. One would like to know how many people have been convicted; how many have been discharged and how many are still awaiting trial. I think that becomes more important when you think of it that the most recent report of the Commissioner of Police is for the year 1961. That makes it even more imperative for the Minister to give us some detail of the nature I have mentioned because of the lack of statistics and other information in the normal way of official reports. I was glad to hear the Minister say that he would go into the matter immediately after the dinner adjournment.

The second matter I want to raise with the Minister, is the matter of the payment of compensation to those persons who suffered injury or incapacity consequent upon the happenings at Sharpeville and Langa in March 1961, and also the matter of compensation to those people who have lost relatives or parents. I raised these matters with the Minister in a number of questions to the most recent of which a reply was given on 7 May this year. That reply indicated that as at that date 83 claims were still unpaid and one claim was still being investigated. According to the hon. the Minister’s reply the amount involved exceeded R32,100. The Minister also replied that payment could only be made after this Vote had been passed. The first thing I want to draw attention to is that the amount provided for in the current Estimates, under sub-head (E), is for a lesser sum namely R30,000. I think the House is entitled to some explanation as to the difference in figures because normally a maximum and not a minimum is appropriated in matters of this nature. Seeing that there is at least one which is still being considered, the amount might even exceed the difference between the two figures. Claims of this nature usually arise from legal process in the courts. I am aware of it that claims of that nature fall away once indemnity is granted to the State against liability of that nature. That indemnity, of course, was granted by the Indemnity Act 61 of 1916. What I am concerned with at present is admittedly not an enforceable claim against the State; it is merely a claim in the nature of an ex gratia payment. We accept therefore that it is abnormal and that the Minister himself is correct v/hen he says that money has to be provided before payment can be made. Nevertheless, Sir, these payments are in respect of injury, suffering, or loss of parental support. Time has obviously been marching on. Over two years have elapsed since those occurrences. I would therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to assure this House and the country that when the money is granted the claims will be settled expeditiously. Those claims are obviously now due having regard to the fact that the committee was set up which determined which claims should be met.

I want to come to a matter which, although it relates to police, is a matter of policy as far as the Minister is concerned and not a matter which falls strictly under the Police Vote as such. I refer to the payment for police active service in South West Africa.

Order! The

hon. member can discuss that matter under the Police Vote.

It has nothing to do with the administration of the police; it is dealing purely with the fiscal aspect.

The hon. member can discuss that under the Police Vote.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I shall obviously leave the matter over.

I now come to the annual report to which the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse) has also referred. I too want to offer my congratulations to the Secretary of Justice on coming forward so expeditiously with the report this year. I do feel, however, that the numbering of the paragraphs is exceedingly complicated. I wanted to refer to a few of the paragraphs but I am afraid that the numbering itself is so difficult that I will not be able to refer the Minister to the paragraphs but that I shall have to refer him to the page. [Time limit.]

There are a number of matters I wish to raise. The first of these is the question of a new magistrate’s court for Durban. This is a subject about which I spoke last year during the hon. the Minister’s Vote. The situation in regard to the magistrate’s court in Durban is appalling as the Minister is aware.

You need not labour that point; I accept it.

I do not wish to labour the point but I would however draw the Minister’s attention to his reply to me on this question. He stated in Col. 8298 of last year’s Hansard that the magistrate’s court there was a disgrace to Durban and for that matter to any city. I raise this matter again because as far as I can see, although the Minister stated that he considered this as priority No. I, very little, if anything, appears to have been done in the intervening period of approximately 12 months. I should like to know from the Minister exactly what is happening about the construction of a new magistrate’s court in Durban.

Order! Provision is made for that item in the Loan Vote.

The other two matters I wish to raise at this stage you will probably rule as coming under the Police Vote. I refer to police control posts along the borders of Basutoland, Swaziland and Bechuanaland. May I raise this at this stage or am I to raise it under the Police Vote?

The hon. member must raise that under the Police Vote.

Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to discuss this Police Vote separately; this is a question of the Minister’s policy.

I have already indicated that I am prepared to allow a discussion of the Minister’s policy under each Vote, the police policy, the prison policy and the justice policy.

Can we not discuss police policy under the Justice Vote, the two are so closely associated.

The Minister’s salary does not appear under the Police or Prison Vote. The only alternative is to put the three Votes together.

Is it possible for us to move that you take the three Votes together?

I am afraid the procedure does not permit that.

Sir, I naturally accept your ruling but I would ask you to give this matter further consideration. It is very difficult to differentiate between policy when it comes to the question of police or prisons. They are so interlinked as far as both principle and policy are concerned that it is extremely difficult to differentiate. They are so inextricably mixed that the debate becomes very difficult.

Let me put it this way: I am prepared to allow a wide discussion on the three Votes on condition that the Police Vote and the Prisons Vote are put formally. No further discussion will be allowed on them.

We accept that, Sir.

In view of your ruling in regard to the new magistrate’s court for Durban, I shall leave that subject. I should first like to deal with the question of foot patrols.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to deal with a few matters raised by hon. members who have so far taken part in the debate. I want to start immediately with the matter raised by the hon. member for Prinshof (Mr. Visse). He wanted to know whether officials from other Departments were welcome and could also attend these training schools. The reply is yes, the officials of other Departments are welcome; they can also enrol if they apply. As far as the latest school is concerned several officials from the Prisons Department enrolled and received training. The hon. member also referred to the legal advisers’ sections. The position there, of course, is that it is a professional section. That is not the only professional section in the Civil Service. Many other Departments also have professional sections consisting of engineers and other professional men. It is obvious, of course, that when it comes to the question of the remuneration of professional men the Civil Service cannot, from the nature of things, compete with outsiders. Not only can the Civil Service not compete with them but the universities are naturally not in a position to compete either. There are special scales applicable to legal advisers and I can assure the hon. member that the position which exists to-day is quite satisfactory, also as far as promotions are concerned. There is no reason whatsoever to be concerned. As far as the remuneration is concerned there are special scales and the hon. member will readily agree with me when I say that a professor of law at a university will probably earn much more at any Bar, or let me put it this way: He is probably paid much less than any ordinary senior/junior counsel can earn at any Bar. That is true and we must simply accept it as such. Of course, the Civil Service offers compensatory factors, such as security, pensions, normal holidays and other things. That is a problem which we simply have to put up with. I do want to assure the hon. member, however, that the position is basically sound.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) followed on the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and as to the queries raised by the hon. member, I will deal with them when I reply fully to the hon. member for Germiston (District). As far as the matter of the ex gratia payments to the Sharpeville victims is concerned, the position is that the hon. member will see that a certain amount is allocated for that purpose. If there is any short-fall, then naturally Treasury will have to make good that short-fall and there will not be any difficulty in obtaining such amount from the Treasury. The hon. member of course understands that these amounts cannot be paid out until such time as this Vote has been approved. If we were to pay out the amount now, naturally I would have some difficulties with the Auditor-General and I may even have difficulties with the ex Auditor-General if I should make such a mistake. Therefore it simply has to stand over, unfortunately, until such time as this Vote has been approved of.

Will you expedite the payments?

I can give the hon. member the assurance that as soon as the Vote is passed, then as soon as possible thereafter the money will be paid out in accordance with the recommendations of the committee appointed to investigate the matter.

As far as the Durban Magistrate’s Court is concerned, I can only reiterate what I have already told the hon. member, viz. that is far as this Department is concerned, the Durban Magistrate’s Court and the Klerksdorp Magistrate’s Court are priorities Nos. 1 and 2 and as far as we are concerned we are doing everything in our power to expedite matters as much as possible. The hon. member knows that at this stage it has been passed on to the Department of Public Works and it is out of our hands, but in spite of that I can give him the assurance that we will do everything we can to see that those buildings are put up as soon as possible.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Can the hon. Minister indicate whether the site that has been finally accepted for the new magistrates’ courts is one of the sites near the present Durban goal, or is it some other site?

As far as the site is concerned, I personally prefer the old site. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) is well aware of the fact that I personally plumped for the old site and that I was very much in favour of the old site, but the hon. member is also aware that there was a difference of opinion between the Durban Corporation on the one hand and certain other interested parties and bodies on the other hand, and the site approved of by Public Works is not the old site but it is the other site near the goal. I think I am correct in stating that.

You know that there was an additional difficulty in regard to the new railway station?

The hon. member has told me about certain additional difficulties, but I am afraid that I cannot take the matter any further at this stage.

Then the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) has raised the question of the sale of fire-arms. Permits to buy fire-arms are only issued to individuals after a police report has been received by the magistrate concerned, and after the magistrate has satisfied himself that there is in fact a necessity for that individual to acquire that fire-arm. The hon. member knows that it is entirely within the discretion of the magistrate to grant the licence or not, and any aggrieved individual can thereafter appeal to the Minister if and when the magistrate refuses him a permit to buy a fire-arm. That is as the law stands at present. It is of course tradition with our people, if I may put it that way, to possess fire-arms, and one can readily understand how it came about and one can readily understand that people will want to have fire-arms. One cannot very well, if there is nothing detrimentally known about a person, refuse to let him have a firearm. I am also aware that there are certain abuses. I am also aware of the fact that some people go about very negligently as far as fire-arms are concerned. I personally about a year ago issued a warning to ail and sundry that the time may come when Parliament will have to decide whether it must not be made an offence if people lose their fire-arms negligently. I issue that warning again, and if the position does not improve, then perhaps it will be necessary next year to come to Parliament and to ask Parliament in fact to make it an offence if people lose their fire-arms negligently. It is the policy of the Department to refuse fire-arms to those who have in fact lost their fire-arms through negligence. The hon. member can rest assured that they will not get a second one. As far as the central register is concerned, the hon. member knows what my attitude is and the Department is giving attention to that matter.

The hon. member referred to a certain statement reported to have been made by my colleague the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I have not seen the statement and I do not know whether it is a verbatim report of what the hon. Minister said.

It was reported in Hansard in the Other Place.

Well, all I can say is that the effect of that statement made by my hon. colleague was that certain Whites were behind certain killings, certain murders that took place in South Africa.

And that he knew who they were.

And that the hon. Minister in fact knew who they were. Knowledge in that sense is of course not the same as proof by a court of law. The hon. Minister is a layman and the hon. member will understand in what context the hon. Minister used those words. But I want to say here and now that the purport of what the hon. Minister has said boils down to this, that certain murders took place in South Africa and that certain known Whites were behind it. I say that the hon. Minister had every right to say so, and I do not say that lightly at all. I say that the hon. Minister had every right to say so and I will tell the hon. member why. First of all, I would like to refer the hon. member to the report of the Snyman Commission. There you had a Judge, not a layman, and this is what the hon. Mr. Justice Snyman said about this matter in paragraph 18 of the report—

“There is evidence” says the Judge, and if a Judge finds that there is evidence to that effect, then the hon. Minister is perfectly entitled to say that there are Whites—as a layman would express it—behind these murders.

Did the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration not submit an affidavit to the Snyman Commission in regard to the matter?

That makes no difference to the argument whatsoever. The hon. Minister submitted an affidavit. For the moment I just cannot remember what he said in that affidavit.

It was never published.

Yes, therefore I do not know what was in the affidavit. I know that he submitted an affidavit, same as I did.

Is the hon. Minister suggesting that the hon. Minister of Bantu Affairs knows more of the evidence submitted to the Snyman Commission, other than what appears in the report?

What the hon. Minister knows I know.

It goes further than the report?

If the hon. member just bides his time, I will tell him. The Snyman Commission goes on to say—

Naturally if the hon. Judge Snyman refers to evidence, then it is not a statement by either me or the Minister of Bantu Administration, because he did not give evidence before that commission. Then it is other evidence that was placed before the commission—

And then there is this very, very significant statement by the commissioner—

The hon. member must listen closely to the words used by the commissioner here “time and again

…followed by murderous attacks on tribal chiefs, headmen and other persons by Poqoled gangs.

Then the commissioner goes on to say—

What is the position? Exactly as Mr. Justice Snyman said here, and it is known to me as it is known to my hon. colleague that certain Whites are in fact behind some of these murders. The reasonable question will immediately be: Why do you not prosecute them? And the answer is perfectly simple: Because we have not got the evidence at the moment. We have certain evidence; we have certain evidence to place before a court, to place before a Judge, as we placed it before Mr. Justice Snyman. But that is not enough, Sir. The hon. member knows, as every legal man in this House knows, that once you have charged a man and once he pleaded to that charge and is found not guilty, then you cannot charge the man later if you do find the evidence that you in fact require to get a safe conviction. Therefore these people will certainly not be charged before the proper evidence can be laid before the courts. Because the moment you do charge them before a court you have shot your bolt, and then you cannot come back later even when you do get the evidence. A further perfectly legitimate question is: Will you get the evidence? At this stage I do not know, but I am quite satisfied in my own mind that in due course we will get the evidence. Let me give the hon. member an example. Some time last year an act of sabotage was committed on the railway line at Uitenhage in the eastern Cape. There was not a clue as to who committed the sabotage. Yet months and months thereafter the culprits were found, and they were not only found, but they were charged and they were found guilty and sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment each and every one of them—there were three involved in the matter. So therefore in due course we will get the evidence. But the hon. member is entitled to ask me: Are there in fact Whites, do you know of any Whites who were in fact behind some of these goings-on. And then I say “yes”. I not only know that they were behind it but some were in fact charged before the proper courts and sentenced. I refer the hon. member to Turok’s case. There you had a White man, a leading member of the Congress of Democrats. This person was found guilty of placing a bomb in a certain building in Johannesburg.

I was referring to the Transkei.

As far as the Transkei is concerned there was the Strachan case, and in Strachan’s case it was proved conclusively to the court that not only did Strachan have certain explosives in his possession but that he ran a bomb-school and he and certain of his associates were charged before the court in Port Elizabeth. Only Strachan was found guilty. One of his associates has now fled the country, but he was known to have committed these acts under the guidance and at the instigation of Strachan, but he was found not guilty, for the reason that one of the witnesses committed perjury and the other one simply disappeared. Therefore he could not have been found guilty. But if the hon. member thinks back, he will remember that certain other Bantu who had committed sabotage were charged in East London—in fact a child was killed—and there is every reason to believe, in fact there was evidence to that effect, and the method was the same as that employed by the Strachan sabotage school in Port Elizabeth. So therefore if my colleague makes a statement, apart from other evidence I am going to lay before the House and the hon. member that there are Whites …

In this debate?

Yes, when I reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District) I will give the hon. member further facts. If my hon. colleague therefore says that there are Whites behind all this, he is perfectly entitled to say so.

His phrase was “they planned the murders”.

Yes, because these are not murders committed on the spur of the moment, they were all planned murders. And by whom were they perpetrated? By the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., and both, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. are to a certain extent (the A.N.C. more so than the P.A.C.) White-led and White-inspired, and everybody knows that. The hon. member knows that, the whole House knows it and the country knows it.

You say the A.N.C. more so than the P.A.C.?

Yes, there are more Whites in the A.N.C. than in the P.A.C. There is not a shadow of a doubt that that is the position.

I told the hon. member that if and when I reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), I will give him further proof of what I have just said. The hon. member for Germiston (District), I take it is unavoidably absent. He has put certain questions to me and I will now reply to those questions as he put them to me. First of all, the hon. member referred to the responsibility that rests upon my shoulders at this stage as Minister of Justice. That is perfectly true and I am fully aware of that. I sincerely hope that I will at all times be up to that responsibility. If not and if it is made clear to me, then naturally there is only one way out and that is to make way for another and a better man.

The hon. member has also said that great powers are vested in me as Minister of Justice. That is also true, and it must of necessity be so in these times we are living in. The hon. member knows what has happened in South Africa: the hon. member knows what has happened outside our borders; the hon. member knows what has been said against us, and not only what has been said against us, but what has been plotted against us in Addis Ababa, Lobatsi and elsewhere. Therefore of necessity, unfortunately, these powers must be vested in the Minister of Justice at the moment. Let me say that if Parliament had not taken the steps that it did in the past, if Parliament had not vested such powers in the Minister of Justice, be it my predecessors or myself, then the position might well have been very different from what it is to-day.

Then the hon. member for Germiston (District) went on to say that it is my duty to report as fully as possible to the House, and I fully agree with the hon. member. I want to go further and say that I have at all times been very frank with hon. members. I have been very frank with Parliament when my policy motion was discussed in the Other Place, and I have been very frank with hon. members when the General Law Amendment Bill was debated by this House and I placed all the facts and evidence which I had at my disposal, before the House, and hon. members will recall that that was in fact so.

Then the hon. member for Germiston (District) said that he was concerned about the safety of witnesses in certain trials. I am also concerned about that, and that is why, hon. members will recall, we had certain cases where witnesses gave evidence masked, so that they could not be recognized by the spectators in the court. We had other cases where the court was cleared and where the court ordered the witnesses’ names not to be published so as to protect those witnesses. Hon. members can well ask the question, and it is a legitimate question: Can you, or can you not protect those witnesses? Let me say at the outset that there are thousands and thousands of witnesses and when we speak of “protection” of witnesses it is of course a physical impossibility to have a policeman at such witness’s side day and night. That is just impossible. We have to deal with people who do not—and I have said that before, and make no excuse for saying it again—play the game according to the rules. We are dealing with dangerous men playing for extremely high stakes, and just how high those stakes are I will tell hon. members. Therefore it is nothing to them to do away with a witness, and it is physically impossible, not only in this country but in the Rhodesias, in America and in any other country of the world, to protect witnesses unless you lock them up for such time as they are required to appear in court as witnesses. And in fact some of them were locked up to protect them against the associates of accused persons, and because of the fact that between the preparatory examination and the actual hearing some time must of necessity elapse. But I can tell hon. members now, and hon. members will have noticed it from the reports in the newspapers that the position has improved tremendously over the last couple of months. Witnesses come forward readily. We have not had a case of intimidation or assault of a witness for some time now. And not only has that position improved, but the general position has improved tremendously. Therefore when the hon. member for Germiston (District) expresses concern, I myself, the whole Department, each and every official, each and every policeman, is just as concerned about it, and we make it our business, Sir, to end, if I may call it so, that reign of terror, and at this stage I want to repeat that the position is very, very much better.

Then the hon. gentleman asked me whether there was a possibility that the report of Mr. Justice Snyman will be made available before the end of the Session. I told him by way of reply to a question that I do not know. All I can tell hon. members is that I will submit that report as soon as I receive it from the commissioner. Whether that will be before the end of the month, I do not know. The commissioner is expediting it as much as possible.

The hon. member has also asked me whether that report will contain certain urgent recommendations which in my opinion should be considered by the House before we adjourn. I do not know what will be in the report and therefore I cannot say whether it will contain certain urgent recommendations. I rather think that the recommendations as far as Bills to be placed before the House go, those recommendations were made in the interim report and I cannot think of any further recommendation coming from the commissioner which must be translated into law during this Session. But that is only pure speculation on my part, not knowing what will be in the report and not knowing when it will be forthcoming. I am afraid I cannot take the matter any further.

The hon. member also referred to the organization called “Poqo” and he asked me whether I can give an assurance that this organization has been smashed. My reply is that this organization has been beaten, and as I have said before, has not been beaten on points but has been knocked out. A boxer who has been knocked out may try to make a come-back. Poqo might try to make a comeback. I do not think they would be wise if they did, and secondly, they will get a bigger knock-out if they try it. It has been knocked out. It will definitely, as I see the position, not try to stage a come-back in the immediate future, but what else the future holds I of course cannot foretell. But I can give hon. members the assurance that Poqo cannot arrange anything which the S.A. Police cannot smash.

The hon. member has also asked me whether I can give any information in respect of leaders who have disappeared without trace. Since 1960 approximately 195 leaders or active members of the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., White and Black, have left the country. It is rather significant that we locked up certain people under the ninety-days’ clause, and that almost immediately thereafter certain people from Cape Town—I refer to one Desai and one September—fled the country. Almost immediately certain people fled from Port Elizabeth, and almost immediately thereafter certain people fled from Johannesburg, like Harmel, Hodgson and others. I do not want to say more at this stage than that I think they had every reason to make a quick get-away. Harmel and Hodgson were leaders of the A. N.C. They were of course communists, but they were intimately connected with the A. N.C., and without giving away anything at this stage I do not think they were very far away from the Spear of the Nation. Another man who has fled the country is one of the colleagues of the hon. member and of mine, Adv. Slovo, who practised at the Johannesburg Bar. Hon. members will recall that certain restrictions were placed upon him. I am telling this story again to show hon. members how the minds of these people work. After I put the restrictions on this gentleman, he approached the Johannesburg Bar Council, which approached me in turn and requested me to uplift the restrictions. I said to the chairman of the Johannesburg Bar Council that I was perfectly prepared to remove all the restrictions from this individual provided he gave his word of honour, not even in writing and not even to me, but to the chairman of the Bar Council that he would not be associated with any subversive activities, and he refused to do so. I did not even require it in writing, or that he give his word to me. Naturally when the chairman of the Bar Council reported it to me he said that as far as he was concerned they would have nothing further to do with this man. That is the type of man, the type of White man, who is actively associated not only with subversive activities but more particularly with the communist party and the A.N.C. and the Congress Alliance, and all these movements, the A.N.C. and the P.A.C., are all actively associated with the Congress Alliance. Then the hon. member asked me whether I could give him any information about Leballo. I am sorry that I cannot, for the simple reason that he is not in South Africa and to the best of my knowledge and belief he is still in Basutoland. There are plenty of rumours. One is to the effect that the warrant originally issued for his arrest by the Basutoland authorities has been withdrawn. I do not know whether that is true. All I know is that there is a very strong rumour to that effect. But to the best of my knowledge this loud mouth is still in Basutoland.

Then the hon. member asked me whether I was aware of a decision, to put it that way, of the A.N.C. to resort to violence and murder in the future. When I told the hon. member that I would give him further evidence, I meant it, and I will now proceed to do so. I am now referring to the pamphlet, the monthly sheet of the A.N.C. issued from their Cairo office, dated April of this year. It was received on 16 May. It is a long pamphlet, and I will only read certain portions from it—

Hon. members know what was decided at the All-In Conference at Pietermaritzburg—

Hon. members will know that at this All-In Conference a demand was made that the system of one man, one vote, must be adopted immediately in South Africa and that power must be handed over to the Black majority in Southern Africa. Then the statement goes on—

I want to repeat this sentence—

And I want hon. members to note the words—

That is in fact what was planned at Addis Ababa, as hon. members know. Therefore we have two problems. The one problem is the sabotage itself, but our other problem is the rousing of the masses, as they say here, because they must have this fertile soil of the roused masses before sabotage can be effectively committed. That is why, apart from the fact that v/e arrest saboteurs and bring them to court, there rests a duty upon us to place restrictions upon agitators not to arouse the masses. And because we have done that, we have the present position in South Africa, and hon. members need only look across our borders to see the contrast. That is why we have quiet here. Therefore if the hon. member asks me whether the A.N.C. has decided to resort to violence and murder in future, the answer is yes.

But I want to go further. It was always been their aim and object. It is not a new situation. It has been their aim and object all along. they only bided their time and waited for the opportunity. One finds that in literature way back in 1952 and 1953. Then the hon. member asked me whether there are schools for the training of saboteurs outside our borders. Hon. members will recall that during the discussion of the General Laws Amendment Act I gave certain instances. I told hon. members that we had in fact arrested certain people who were fully-trained saboteurs. Some of them have appeared before the courts already, and others will appear before the courts in the future. Hon. members will also recall that only a few days ago people were arrested on the borders of Bechuanaland. They were on their way—I do not want to say conclusively at this stage, and I do not want to prejudice the issue—but they were on their way to certain places outside our borders.

The hon. member has asked me about Proclamation No. 400 in the Transkei. I said by way of interjection then that it was not my proclamation, but that of my colleague. I want to say, however, that if it were not for the fact that we had Proclamation 400, matters would have taken a completely different turn in the Transkei. The peace and quiet we are experiencing in the Transkei at this moment can to a large extent be ascribed to the fact that there was such a thing as Proclamation 400. He went on to ask me whether the situation in the Transkei was under control. At this stage I think I can say that the position is under control, thanks to the measures we adopted, and adopted timeously. Then he asked me about Sections 4 and 17 of the General Laws Amendment Act. He asked me how many people were held in terms of Section 4 and how many were held in terms of Section 17. As far as Section 4 is concerned, only one man, Sobukwe, is held in terms of that section. As far as Section 17 is concerned, I have just lost the figures for the moment, but as soon as I can lay my hands on them I will give them to the hon. member. The hon. member asked me whether these people were fully protected by the responsible authorities, and the reply is yes, they are visited weekly by the chief magistrates concerned, and to this day I have received no complaints from anybody that anything untoward has happened in that connection. Those who are actually held were held under Section 17, and they number 42 in all, and three have been released. The hon. member has asked me whether their families are provided for. I also replied by way of interjection that v/e had the same position in 1960. I was then Deputy Minister of Social Welfare. People approached me at the time and I then in that capacity made provision for the families of these people. I may just by way of contrast say that 25 years ago people were also held and interned and provision was made for their families, 17s. 6d. per child per month and £3 10s. for a wife. That is not the position to-day.

The hon. member asked me whether the detention of these persons is having the desired effect. I can candidly say that it has. More I cannot and will not say at this stage. He also asked me whether these detainees will be released if and when our purpose has been served, and the reply is naturally yes. Then the hon. member asked me about the future. He also asked me whether I agreed that it should be the aim of this House and of any South African Government to bring about a situation in this country where it will not be necessary to retain these extraordinary provisions on our Statute Book. The reply is naturally yes. Then the hon. member asked me how long I thought this would continue. It is of course impossible for me to say. Hon. members can judge that position just as accurately as I can. Hon. members know what they have tried to do in this country from the inside, and what they are trying now from the outside. They have definitely not succeeded in subverting us from the inside. They have not succeeded this year, and I am very sure that they will not succeed next year or the year thereafter. They were not successful from the inside, and I make bold to say they will not be successful from the outside. We are dealing with stupid people, with power-drunk people, people who see all sorts of images and therefore it is very difficult to judge just how they will react. But I want to say that as far as the S.A. Police are concerned—and I thank the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) for his remarks about the police—we are ready for whatever these people are planning to do in South Africa. I think all hon. members will agree with me when I say that the S.A. Police have done a splendid job. [Hear, hear!] In spite of very great difficulties they have done a very good job.

*I have been asked how far we have got in regard to the actual tracing of criminals. I may tell hon. members that in so far as sabotage is concerned, to date the courts have convicted 126 people who have been charged since we passed the Sabotage Act last year, and hon. members will remember that the lightest sentence any of them received was eight years. But 126 have been convicted to date, and hon. members see that cases are still being dealt with in the courts every day, and the courts are still giving judgment daily. Judgment was given in one of these cases only to-day. In regard to sabotage, there are still 511 accused persons awaiting trial. If hon. members ask me how many Poqo members have been charged with murder, I can tell them that to date 124 have been convicted and 77 are still in the process of being tried. Seventeen have been charged with attempted murder. Up to yesterday two cases were pending, which have now been disposed of, and hon. members have seen the result. In connection with the Bashee murder, 53 people are being detained. The investigation in that case has now been completed and the trial will take place soon. A further five cases of attempted murder are still being investigated.

Then I come to the continued existence of banned organizations. In that regard action has already been taken against 670 people, and apart from those who are under arrest, 1,357 are in the process of being tried, and the total number of arrests of active Poqo members up to 5 June was 3,246. Hon. members may draw their own inferences from this, and there is only one inference one can draw in this regard, and that is that the police have more than done their duty in regard to the eradication of this canker in our national life. I want to give hon. members the assurance that everything possible is being done and will be done to ensure the safety not only of every individual, but of the country and its population. I have said before, and I think I should repeat it, that had it not been for the timeous and prompt action of the police, these people who were foolish enough to believe it possible, and who made preparations for taking over South Africa in 1963, would have caused a bloodbath in South Africa. There were certain incidents, and certain murders were committed. One felt deeply hurt and it was a cruel shock, but we can be very grateful that there were only a few incidents, and it remained at just those few incidents because measures were timeously passed by this House to deal with that position, and because the police had the necessary powers to take action when they were required to do so, and because the police in the circumstances were exceptionally efficient.

That then is the position, and in conclusion I can only say that although for the time being, and I believe for an appreciable time to come, we have adequately dealt with Poqo, we dare not lose sight of the fact that we are still faced with the problem of the A.N.C., and it is a very real problem because it is par excellence the organization which has many more White brains at its disposal, not only overseas, but here as well. May I just give another example in that regard. I had to take action against a certain woman, Mrs. Joseph, in the interests of the safety of the State. She was at the head of the Federation of South African Women. I was criticized for taking action against her. What does the A.N.C. say in this regard—

The Federation of South African Women is nothing more or less than the women’s branch of the Communist Party and the female flank of the A.N.C. Those of us who know the Bantu know what a tremendous role an incited woman can play in regard to the commission of violence. That makes it necessary that not only should the men’s organizations be dealt with in this way, but we should not lose sight of the fact that there are equally dangerous women’s organizations, and at the head of those women’s organizations there were White women, viz. Mrs. Joseph and Mrs. Weinberg. I say that whilst Poqo does not constitute an immediate threat to us, the immediate danger is the A.N.C. with its militant wing, the Spear of the Nation, and we are busy taking just as effective action against this organization as we did against the first-mentioned one. That is also the reason why, in spite of disturbances elsewhere, we in South Africa can be grateful for the fact that our boat is sailing in calm waters at the moment, and I hope that in future it will continue to sail in calm waters.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has given us a comprehensive review of the debate up to this stage and he has left me with a sense of profound uneasiness because, in dealing with the point I have raised earlier on, he has made it quite clear that there has been a lapse on the part of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development which was regrettable in the highest degree. When a Minister, or a person in a highly responsible position, makes a statement to the effect that certain gruesome murders are planned by certain individuals, the identity of whom is known, and when that is a true statement which is substantiated, the effect is only deplorable because it lowers the morale of law-abiding people because they then believe that the situation is not truly under control, while it raises the morale of the unlawful elements, the agitator element, because they believe, or they are led to believe, that by their actions they are having some success. But, Sir, when it is a fact and when it is substantiated, there is very often on a responsible Minister the duty to make a statement of that kind even though it might have the unfortunate results which I have outlined, not to mention the fact that it might hinder the police in their work to discover further subversive activities of that kind.

You talk as if you have a brief for them.

But, Sir, when such a statement is made by a responsible Minister for which there is no substantiation whatever, as we have learned in this specific instance, when a statement of that kind was made for which there was no evidence, for which there was no proof whatever and as a result of which no one was charged or no prosecution was brought, then an act has been perpetrated in the political sphere of the most reprehensible kind, because there are the results stemming from that which I have just outlined, and that to the disadvantage of the hon. the Minister and to the police authorities who are trying to control these things, and to the disadvantage of those of us who wish to down the canker to which the hon. the Minister referred.

The statement to which I referred earlier—I do not propose to read it again—referred to the fact that murders, in the plural, in the Transkei had been planned by Whites and that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development knew the names of the persons who had done it. Now it appears from the statement of the hon. Minister of Justice, which was a full statement and to the point, that there is no basis at the present time for that statement.

You have not been listening to what the Minister said.

You misunderstood.

I misunderstood nothing. The Minister said there was no evidence to support a charge. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said he could not prove a charge in respect of this statement.

Not beyond any reasonable doubt.

Mr. Chairman, if there is no evidence and if there is no proof …[Interjections] …then no statement of this nature could legitimately have been made. The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) knows better than to interject in this fashion. There is no magic …

You are talking such a lot of nonsense.

…in the degree of proof required to bring home a charge.

You are suffering from chronic nightmares.

There is no degree of magic required to bring home a charge. It is quite an ordinary thing—either there is proof, or there is no proof …[Interjections.]

On a point of order, Sir. The Minister was given a fair hearing and I appeal to you to ask hon. members to give that also to the hon. member speaking.

CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member may continue.

I want to urge upon the Minister with all the emphasis I can command that where there is no substantiation for charges of this kind, that he persuades his hon. colleagues and everybody in a high position to refrain from making any statement at all until such time as it can be substantiated when there is the necessity in nine cases out of ten for something to be said. I say this because it can only have a detrimental effect; it is to no one’s political advantage that this type of thing is said; it cause uneasiness unnecessarily; it depresses the economy—you only have to look at the stock market to see that …[Interjections.] Furthermore, it gives hope to the unlawful elements that what they wish to achieve is being achieved and is having success. This, above all, is to be avoided. I raise this point specifically because this is not the first time that we have had a statement of this nature, a most vague statement—a statement of the most serious import, which remains unsubstantiated—regrettably so, but these are the facts. Let us not have this sort of thing in future because, as I said, it is to nobody’s advantage, least of all to the police authorities who are trying to get to the bottom of this sort of thing.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply immediately to the hon. member who has just sat down although I shall still do so. Firstly, I want to say that I have a sincere desire this evening, on behalf of every decent and good South African in South Africa, to express our gratitude to the hon. the Minister of Justice for the action he has taken during the difficult days South Africa has gone through. He took action timeously; he acted with determination as behoves a person who loves this people and his fatherland. I think I would have failed in my duty to the people I represent had I not said these few words of thanks. In addition I want to say that the hon. the Minister has taken this House into his confidence to-night like no Minister of Justice has ever done in South Africa. I would have expected members of the Opposition to be very grateful and to have admitted that he had taken them into his confidence—more so than they deserve.

They are disappointed.

They have, however, appointed an irresponsible back-bencher, a person of whom nobody should really take any notice, a person whom one should imagine is nothing but the advocate of Poqo in this House, to speak after the hon. the Minister has spoken and given us that exposition. That was really how he acted this evening. I am sorry I have to say this about a colleague of mine but I feel it is necessary and essential because we are living in difficult times and we should not say such irresponsible things in this House.

He has laid a charge against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. We discussed the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this House but he did not have the courage of his conviction then to say one word about that matter in the presence of the Minister. He waited until the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Justice came up for discussion knowing that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was busy in the Other Place with his policy motion. Now he comes here and lays an unfounded charge against the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. The Minister of Justice told us that his colleague knew exactly what he himself knew. The hon. the Minister of Justice also said that the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development was justified in saying what he did in fact say. Apart from that the hon. the Minister of Justice said that he associated himself with every word the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said. This hon. back-bencher, however, lacks the courage to say to the hon. the Minister of Justice what he has said to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, although the Minister of Justice said he associated himself with everything the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development had said. I deprecate such action and I hope we shall never have a repetition of it in this House. He says the statement by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, namely, that he knew that White people were behind this and that he knew their names, was planned. But the hon. the Minister of Justice said that he too had that information but that he did not have sufficient evidence which would ensure that the court would find them guilty. If he were to charge those people on the evidence he has they would be found not guilty and when further evidence becomes available later on—as happens in many cases—he will not be able to take action against them.

There is also another side to this and it is this that those Whites, those people who do not want to have anything to do with Poqo, those people who are not advocates of Poqo, will know that the Minister knows who those people are and they will be reassured. That was why it was necessary for the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to say what he did indeed say so as to assure the White people of South Africa that he was not sitting back with his hands folded. That is the one angle of this matter which this hon. back-bencher loses sight of completely.

Let me say immediately that as far as this matter is concerned, we foresee grave dangers for the future. We believe that more difficult days than we have had in the past are still awaiting the hon. the Minister of Justice. I believe more difficult times are awaiting our people. I want to say something which I should like the Opposition to take note of. The hon. the Minister said that the danger of an attack from within South Africa had been eliminated and that if we were attacked from outside he hoped we would also be able to withstand that. But we have people in South Africa—I trust members of the Opposition do not associate themselves with them—a whole number of Whites who are actively creating the impression in the outside world that when the National Government is brought to a fall by means of pressure from outside, they would come into power in South Africa. There are people like that and there are also members of the Opposition who have made themselves guilty of trying to create that impression, namely, that with assistance from outside they will be able to bring the National Government to a fall. I want to warn them that if they play that game much longer they will be brought to book. We shall deal with them the way we have dealt with Poqo. The White people of this country do not want to have anything to do with things like that. The Whites of South Africa are united not only as far as an attack from within is concerned, but also as far as an attack from outside is concerned. There should not be a suspicion of collusion with forces outside South Africa with the object of bringing this Government to a fall.

I should like the Leader of the Opposition to get up and make a clear statement to the world outside that we shall resolve our differences in South Africa and that we do not need any assistance in any form whatsoever to bring a Government to a fall. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not do that I think he will be failing in his duty.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the privilege of the second half-hour. It is a great pity that the quiet and responsible statement of the hon. the Minister should have been followed on the Government side by a speech from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) which for irresponsibility rivalled anything I have ever heard in this House. I think it is shocking that a debate of such importance should have been dragged down to that level by his cheap attempt to make political capital out of a very dangerous situation of which we have heard this evening. There is only one thing that he said which is of any importance at all. That is that all Europeans in South Africa are determined to defend South Africa against internal and external sedition and subversion. It is odd that he should make that statement, having accused certain members on this side of the House and others virtually of being allies of these subversive elements. That, of course, is typical of the type of reasoning we have to listen to in a situation of this kind.

Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister knows as well as everybody knows that this side of the House has condemned the subversive activities of the Poqo organization and the sabotage activities of the A.N.C. from the very moment they came to the notice of the public. The hon. the Minister also knows, perhaps too well, how critical we were of him in respect of certain of his earlier actions in that regard. I believe that in dealing with matters of this kind, it is necessary to be very honest with each other and to face up to the situation very clearly. In that spirit I want to tell the hon. the Minister and members on that side of the House that I am far from satisfied with the explanation the Minister has given about the statement made by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This particular statement has a history. It was made while the commission on the Paarl riots were sitting and, as a result of action taken before the Commissioner, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development submitted an affidavit.

Did you tax him about it?

I do not know whether he was taxed about it here or not but, no matter, he was taxed about it in the Other Place …

Why did you not raise it under his Vote?

… and gave a most childish reply rivalled almost by the unsatisfactoriness of this Minister’s reply. Let us examine the matter carefully. This hon. Minister refers to the report of Mr. Justice Snyman in which he said there was evidence that there were Europeans behind this organization; there was evidence that after the visits of certain Europeans to the Transkei, planned murders took place. Now, what was that evidence? Was it the affidavit of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development?

Is that what you want to suggest?

I am not suggesting anything. I am very anxious to see the final report. You see, Sir, this hon. member has indicated how easy it is to jump to conclusions. He jumped, I did not; he jumped to it in his stupidity, because he does hot know. Neither do we know.

And yet you are speculating on it.

I am not speculating on it; I am merely asking you to put our minds at rest. I am asking you to tell us why a Minister can make an irresponsible statement of that kind while the reply we get from you is that you know they have done it but you cannot prove it.

Mr. Chairman, I have practised in the courts as the hon. the Minister has and how often had people who the police knew had done something, been proved to be completely innocent? How often had people been convicted even by the courts only to be found later that they were completely innocent. And the Minister now says he knows it but he cannot prove it. To come and talk to trained lawyers in that language is one of the most unsatisfactory things we have had in this House. I hope this hon. Minister will speak to other members of the Cabinet and particularly to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development whom he has tried loyally to defend and tell him to keep his mouth shut on matters of this kind. [Interjections.] They will thank me one day for this statement and so will the hon. member who interjects when he has a little sense.

Let us now come to the statement of the hon. the Minister of Justice. Let me say that we are grateful to him for a clear statement about the situation. It appears from this statement that a very fine job of work indeed has been done by the South African Police and I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not express from this side of the House our gratitude to the South African Police for what they have done in this connection even beyond the ordinary demands of duty perhaps.

Under the leadership of a good Minister! [Interjections.]

If I could make my own speech, Sir, without the assistance of the hon. member for Heilbron, it would be a lot easier. But let me deal with the statement of the hon. the Minister. I have said I think a very good job of work has been done. But it is still a sad situation that the Minister is not yet confident that his witnesses can be protected. He has talked about his difficulties. He told us the position had improved and that it was some time since he had had a witness disappear, murdered or intimidated. But clearly he is not yet happy because witnesses are still being produced in court hooded in masks so that their identity is hidden.

You are quite wrong; they are not being produced in court hooded in masks.

Their identity is being concealed.

Naturally!

Very well, “naturally” then—accepted at his level. Witnesses are still produced in court under a concealed identity. Why? That does not happen in a law-abiding country where things are as quiet and calm as the hon. the Minister would have us believe! Now, the hon. the Minister also told us that he believed Poqo had been given a knock-out blow. Everyone is relieved to hear that; everyone is indeed relieved to hear that. Let us hope that that is an accurate assessment of the situation. Unfortunately I must warn the Minister that organizations of this nature have a habit of recurring …

That is exactly what I said!

Mr. Justice Snyman himself mentions in his interim report that he does not believe it will be easy to destroy them utterly in a short time. We have seen what happened in Algeria and hope that a parallel situation will not develop here. Consequently, one is inclined to treat statements of this kind with reserve, although with gratitude, and to hope that the situation has in fact improved. We are still, however, left with a great measure of uneasiness. We are left with uneasiness because the Snyman Commission’s interim report makes it clear that this organization has been recruiting openly for some years here in the western Cape. It makes it perfectly clear that this organization went underground after the Act of 1960 and that it continued its activities here comparatively openly and recruited a fairly large membership.

How is it, Sir, that that state of affairs was allowed to arise? It seems that the Minister and his Department were alerted to this danger possibly for the first time after the Paarl riots.

No.

He says “no”, but he never said that before. I should like to know more about it because it is quite clear that when Mr. Justice Snyman came to investigate the situation he was dissatisfied with what he found and believed that a dangerous situation had developed which needed immediate action. One wonders why that situation was allowed to develop and how it developed. But one wonders more what steps this hon. Minister proposes taking to ensure that we shall not have a recurrence of the situation. I think this is why the hon. member for Germiston (District) was interested in certain of the leaders of this organization because while they continue free it is possible that they will again make efforts to organize an organization of this kind.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that after the Addis Ababa conference the situation is more dangerous than it was before. I believe that after that conference—whether we like it or not—there is some measure of agreement and unity amongst the African States and that one of their objectives—if one must believe what has been reported in the Press—is ultimately action against South Africa. Now, we have trouble in trying to find out exactly what happened at that conference because, apparently, this Government had no observers there and is not, apparently, getting information from other States as of right as in the past. Consequently, one wonders to what extent the Government knows exactly what took place there. I wonder whether it is or is not so that representatives of the P.A.C. were at that conference and were lobbying members of the African States and I wonder whether there is any indication that they got promises of support and training and whether there is any indication that the suggestion for the establishment of a committee at Dar-es-Salaam is going to facilitate the activities of organizations of this kind or not. I think the situation calls for the greatest vigilance.

What we should like to learn from the Minister is whether he is aware of this situation, that he is giving attention to it and that he is taking steps to see that if we are now one jump ahead, we shall not only stay one jump ahead, but that we shall secure the situation to the best of our ability. For a long time we have felt that while Poqo is a dangerous organization, it is not as dangerous as the A.N.C. This, I believe, is also the opinion of the hon. the Minister himself. Once again one wonders whether the Minister has information on whether the A.N.C. had representatives at Addis Ababa, and whether any decisions were taken there which will affect its future line of action. One knows that there is some measure of disagreement between the A.N.C. and the P.A.C. One knows that they are competing in the same market for support from the same people while each views itself as, to use their language, the liberators of their Black brothers in the Republic of South Africa. Sir, what steps are we taking to deal with that situation?

The hon. member for Germiston (District) questioned the Minister closely while, really, we have not had much information from the Minister on this subject. I appreciate his difficulties in regard to security risks but I do believe we are entitled to further information as to how that organization is being dealt with, how it is being organized and what steps are being taken to deal with it. As a result of the interim report of Justice Snyman, we have a shrewd idea of what the objectives of the Poqo-P.A.C. organization are. But we have not anything like that information concerning the A.N.C. The hon. the Minister has read to us from a pamphlet issued in Cairo setting out certain of their strivings. He has told us that they are part of the Congress Alliance. He has told us that they have the support of White brains inside and outside South Africa, greater support than Poqo.

Can we know whether the A.N.C. is a communist organization and communist inspired, or is it an African nationalist organization?

Do you not know?

I do not believe we know and I wonder whether the Minister knows.

It is communist led and communist inspired.

Is it communist? The Minister has never ever produced such evidence to this House, never ever at any time. And we are entitled to know what the position is. In the course of our discussions in the past on the internal security of South Africa, we were told about Communism and its dangers, we have seen it defined in all sorts of ways and we have seen steps being taken by this Government in an endeavour to combat it. I believe, Sir, that it is the position to-day that Communism is perhaps a bigger danger than it has been at any time since this Government has come to power. That is due not only to the internal situation, but also to the external situation. I believe that whereas the Minister tells us that this organization is communist led and communist inspired, we still do not know whether it is a cat’s paw for Communism, whether it is being used by communists and whether its ultimate objectives are really communistic.

What will be the use of telling you?

That hon. member asks what will be the use of telling me. Quite frankly I do not believe he knows anything about it.

You did not want to believe that Bunting and Sam Kahn were communists.

It is no good making these remarks. The country is confronted with a serious situation and yet we have this type of cheap interjection coming from that side. Let us get the situation straight between us. Let us know where we stand. The Minister knows very well that when the security of the state is concerned he has always found this side of the House reasonable indeed. He knows that as a responsible Opposition we have done our best. He knows that we can be relied upon when it comes to maintaining law and order in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I wonder whether we could have some quiet, Sir. If there is to be any sort of co-operation then we must have the assurance that we are being taken into the Minister’s confidence to a greater extent than is the position at the present time. We have got to try and have some sort of basis where we can feel that the time being gained by the taking of these actions is being used to remove many of the causes, the situations here in South Africa which are making it easy for these organizations to spread. They have not found it so easy to spread in the past …[Interjections.] There we have it again, Sir—interruptions all the time because they do not like what I am saying. They do not like what I am saying because they know it is absolutely true that the situation created by this Government has made it easier for these organizations to flourish than it was in the past.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Order! Hon. members must give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to make his speech.

When do you use the word “seed-bed” again?

I hope with a little more order than hon. members have been prepared to concede to me and, I hope, Sir, with greater respect for your authority than we have had from that side.

I have said to the hon. the Minister that no one is more jealous of the reputation of South Africa than this side of the House; no one is more jealous and more anxious to see law and order maintained in South Africa and permanently secured than this side of the House. It is very important that if we are to assist in that respect we should have more adequate information, that we should feel the time gained is being properly used, that we should feel that a foundation is being laid to ensure that there will be a permanence of the maintenance of law and order for the future. That, Sir, is what is so vital and what I feel is lacking at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, we are all members of the House of Assembly of the Republic of South Africa. When we came to this House we took an oath that we would serve the Republic faithfully. I do not know how the hon. member who spoke just after the Minister could have taken an oath of allegiance to South Africa and yet make the speech which he did make …

Order! The hon. member must be careful what he says.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am being very careful. I do not know how one can take an oath of allegiance to South Africa and make a speech such as the one made by the hon. member.

What are you suggesting?

I shall tell you what I am suggesting. I say the kind of speech like the one made by the hon. member only encourages. Poqo. It is not to the benefit of South Africa that war should be encouraged by speeches. When the hon. the Minister said that the A.N.C. was communist inspired hon. members opposite laughed and said they wanted more information about that. Have they not learned a lesson in connection with the attitude they adopted in the case of Patrick Duncan and Sam Kahn when the latter was in this House? Mr. Chairman, you were not in the House at the time but when Sam Kahn admitted in this House that he was a communist hon. members opposite got up and said: “No, we do not believe you are one …”

That is not true!

Everybody knows that is so; I challenge hon. members to refer to Hansard. Until recently they still defended Patrick Duncan’s attitude and where is he today? I say this in all sincerity this evening that I do not think South Africa has ever had a Police Force which has served her as faithfully as our present Police Force. We thank the Minister for the action he has taken. As a young South African who has not been Minister for long the country has greater confidence in him than he thinks. We cannot get away from the fact that had the present Government not acted the way it did—I do not want to talk along political lines only—we would not have been here to-night to listen to the type of speech to which we have had to listen.

We are not doing what you did in 1948.

If the hon. member says that again I want to ask you, Sir, to think back to the days when those hon. members laughed when the hon. the Minister spoke about the serious matter which he did speak about. If you were to ask me who laughed I shall tell you, Mr. Chairman. Hon. members tried to ridicule the serious position which the Minister outlined to us, a position from which the police saved us. That is why, on behalf of the people of South Africa and on behalf of those people who took an oath of allegiance to the Republic of South Africa, I want to thank the Minister for his actions in this House and the police for their action outside.

[Inaudible.]

Do you know why that hon. member says that, Sir? He has a grievance. He was kicked out of his job; that is why he feels aggrieved. That is why he belittles his own people in this country.

When are you going to become a Minister?

I shall tell you when:

I shall become a Minister when you become a good South African.

I think the time has arrived for the Minister to look up the speeches that have been made in this House in Hansard. If the speech to which we have had to listen to-night after the Minister had spoken were made outside this House I am sure the police would make notes and take action sooner or later. I want the police to look up the speeches in Hansard and although we have the right of free speech in this House they should not allow people to make speeches which are ruinous to their own country or to encourage people outside to ruin our country. Mr. Chairman, an oath is an oath and if you take an oath of allegiance to a country you should live up to it. Some hon. members did not take an oath of allegiance, they only made a declaration.

Like you did.

Mr. Chairman, I have always taken an oath of allegiance to my country although I made a declaration in respect of a person. If I have to take an oath of allegiance to my country I take oath but when I have to take an oath of allegiance to a person or her descendants I do not take oath. I want to put a question to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition which I should like him to answer: Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition approve of the speech made by that hon. member? I repeat: Does he as Leader of the Opposition approve of the speech made by the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman)?

It was quite justified in view of the unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister.

I am not asking whether he was justified in making it. I ask the leader of the United Party in Natal whether he approves of the speech made by the hon. member for Zululand?

I may say something which you do not want to hear.

The hon. member can say to me whatever he wants to. Mr. Chairman, we have the position to-night that the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Natal do not want to say whether they approve or disapprove of that speech. The reason why I put that question to that party is this: If the attitude of the United Party is as stated by the hon. member for Zululand in his speech, the speech which the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of Natal do not want to say whether they approve or disapprove of, I want to ask the newspapers to publish that speech fully so that the public outside may know what the attitude of the United Party is and so that they can choose between that side and this side. I have never known the Leader of the Opposition to struggle so much to make a speech as he did this evening.

What was wrong with

that speech?

Does that hon. member approve of it? The whole speech from beginning to end was, in my opinion, anti-South Africa.

That is your opinion.

My opinion is that I am faithful to the oath I took. I want to ask the newspapers to publish that speech. I want to ask the English language newspapers in particular to publish that speech and to say: This is the speech which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition refuses to say whether he disapproves or approves of. If I am asked whether or not I approve of the speech of the Minister of Justice and I refuse to answer it means that I do not agree with him or that I am afraid to say that I disapprove of it because if I did it would be to my own detriment outside. I agree 100 per cent with what the hon. the Minister said to-night. We are grateful to him for the information he has given us; We are grateful to him for the action he has taken and we are grateful to the police for the action they have taken.

After the speech we had from the hon. the Minister this evening and the speech …

Why do you not go back to Michael House?

After the speech of the hon. the Minister and the speech of my hon. Leader we have to put up with this unmitigated nonsense, this utter drivel, like the interjection we have just had …

Order! May I point out to the hon. member for South Coast that I permitted interjections from his side. He must not get so annoyed when there are interjections.

With respect to you, Sir, I am not getting annoyed at interjections, I say it is utter drivel. I want to say to the hon. member who has just sat down that he has wasted his time by asking futile questions. My hon. leader has made the position perfectly clear. Of course we stand by what the hon. member for Zululand said. In the light of what the hon. the Minister said this evening the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has nothing more to do than to try to play party politics with the safety of South Africa. He says the speech of the hon. member for Zululand must be reported in the newspapers! I would be ashamed to have a speech, like the speech he made, reported in the newspapers. I deprecate his irresponsible effort to try to make party politics out of the situation. Does the security of South Africa mean nothing to him? Must he take this opportunity to try to make a little party politics out of it? Does he not appreciate what this side of the House has done? Does he not appreciate that this is a moment in our history when every effort should be made to get the two sides of the House together so that we can stand united in facing the dangers which are threatening us? Are those dangers facing the Nationalist Party or are they facing the United Party? Has the Minister not shown us up to the hilt that those dangers are threatening the whole of White South Africa? Is that not the position? Yet we have to listen to the most irresponsible nonsense spoken by a front bencher on the Nationalist side. Hon. members sit there and laugh; that is the respect they show to what the Minister has said this afternoon. It is a laughing matter to them. It is no good their trying to hide behind the skirts of the hon. the Minister; they have not got the wit to appreciate what he has said to us. In the midst of all this seriousness, seriousness which was evident from the complete silence in which he was listened to by both sides of the House, the hon. member comes along and in this flippant, light-hearted gaiety which he exhibits from time to time on everything except liquor, he makes a speech like that and his colleagues behind him aid and abet him. That is the way in which the Nationalist Party view what their own Minister has said let alone what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition on this side. What was the case that was made against the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration? The case made against him was that he had made a statement in which he indicated he would name people who were guilty of armed murders. I think the hon. member for Zululand, in a very careful manner, put a particular point of view. It was referred to subsequently by my leader. The hon. the Minister was challenged after he had made that statement and we got no reply at any time. The opportunity has now arisen in this House to raise that particular matter. I want to suggest, particularly to hon. members who adopt that light-hearted attitude, that hon. Ministers as well as members should leave these things to the Minister of Justice to deal with. We shall then have a responsible man dealing with these very serious matters in a way in which we in Parliament think they should be dealt with.

I repeat, Sir, if hon. members opposite think this is an opportunity to make a little political capital out of the position in South Africa then indeed the position is hopeless. After that kind of speech and after that kind of interjection we must not be surprised if the enemies of South Africa say that the South African Parliament does not take this matter seriously; it takes it in a very light-hearted manner. Not by members of the Opposition but by members of the Government. Sir, if ever there was a condemnation of the attitude of the Nationalist Party in this matter it is their failure to support their own Minister in the spirit in which he made that speech this evening. They should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the internal security of South Africa and in the interests of the State. They should realize that it is no good reproaching this side of the House; they should put their own house in order and exhibit a due sense of responsibility and not get a frontbencher to make the speech which he did on a serious matter such as this.

When this debate started I had the impression that we were going to have a calm discussion on the Justice Vote. I welcomed that. At the present moment we are having a stormy discussion on the Vote Bantu Administration and Development. I can hardly think why a statement made by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development in this House to which he owes a responsibility just as I do is raised in this debate whereas the Minister concerned should have been asked in that debate to explain it. I ask myself what the reason is. The only conclusion I can draw is that hon. members wanted to pick a quarrel with me but that they did not know exactly how to do so; so they first picked a quarrel with my colleague and now they are picking a quarrel with me over the explanation I gave about my colleague. I think that is stupid. I think we are wasting our time. I think we are dragging this debate down to a level, because of the attitude of the Opposition, to which it should never have sunk. I think we should definitely guard against that. While we are dealing with Justice let us discuss Justice matters. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition wishes to pick a quarrel with me, pick a quarrel with me; do not pick a quarrel with my colleague and through him with me. Pick a quarrel directly with me. If I have muddled up anything charge me with it. Do not charge my colleague with it to-morrow or the day after so that he in turn will have to pick a quarrel with you because you picked a quarrel with me when you should not have picked a quarrel with me.

I now wish to bring the debate back to its former level. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that my explanation was not satisfactory. I do not know. I stated my policy motion in the Senate. The representatives of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate were very satisfied with what I said. They gave me a testimonial to the effect that I had done my duty; they told me I had been frank with them and that I had given them all the information which a person could give in the circumstances. That is on record. I have given account of myself to Parliament. What is more, Mr. Chairman, when the General Laws Amendment Bill was introduced I outlined the whole position from A to Z for an hour and a half. To be quite honest I more or less flattered myself that I had done it so well that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made that speech of mine at Green Point. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that we had statements from Whips why we did it; that we had statements from the Leader; that we had one meeting after the other to justify our attitude; that we had to hold a series of meetings throughout the country to explain why we had voted for a certain measure. And now we are trying to justify our attitude in this way! I wonder whether it is worth while. I honestly do not think we should allow ourselves to be stampeded like that by the liberal and leftist elements. It is a big party. Those people only have one representative in this House. I know the difficult position is there of a by-election that has to be fought at Wynberg, but you will win that election. I suggest that we calm down to some extent; that we should not get annoyed with one another. If there is anything in the Department of Justice that should be discussed let us discuss it. There may perhaps be another opportunity to discuss Bantu Administration matters. Let us in the meantime confine ourselves to Justice matters. If you do not criticize me and attack my colleague I may become swollen headed; I may think I am such a good Minister that nobody can attack or criticize me. And that is not good for me nor is it good for Parliament. I think we should not get so hot under the collar. Let us return to earth and let us dispose of the Vote of the Department of Justice.

I should like to deal with certain matters concerning the Minister’s policy and actions in giving consent to the publication of statements by banned people. It is well known that statements by people banned from attending meetings may not be published without the consent of the hon. the Minister. It is also known that he sometimes grants this consent and that he sometimes refuses it. I think it is important that it should be known, not so much in this House perhaps, but outside, and by people who are concerned with these statements, on what principle the Minister acts in granting or refusing permission. I think it is necessary that the principle should be stated clearly, and we shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister would make this clear to us. Because by his decisions in these matters he can either help or harm certain perfectly legitimate political parties or causes. I think, therefore, that this most important power needs responsible treatment which I hope he will give to it. I do not think it is only a question of responsibility but it is a question of difficulty. I hope he will enlighten us as to how he acts.

Flowing from that is another aspect. It is not only what he will permit or does not permit to be published that is important, but what is also important is the speed with which, and the fair treatment of people who seek his consent, that consent is given. I refer here particularly to people whose business it is to be first with the news. One thinks of newspapers and reporters. It is well known that they who are first with the news will have a flourishing paper and they who are last with the news will have a languishing paper. I want the Minister to indicate what principle he follows in ensuring fair dealing as between these people who are in competition with each other.

In this regard I must refer to a recent case which has featured in the Press where I sincerely hope there is a perfectly innocent explanation. But it most certainly looks as if a newspaper which has the biggest South African readership of any one issue was most unfairly discriminated against by the hon. the Minister’s Department. I would like to remind him that in that particular instance more than six weeks before 2 June this paper approached the hon. the Minister’s office and asked for permission to publish an extract from a speech which was of great public interest, as later transpired. This paper left a photostatic copy of this particular speech with the hon. the Minister and asked if he would be good enough to give his decision. It was actually left with the Minister’s private secretary who said he would submit it to the hon. the Minister for his decision. During the six weeks the newspaper in question approached the hon. the Minister’s private secretary approximately eight times to find out whether a decision had been reached. On each occasion they were told that the matter was still awaiting the decision of the Minister. Only on about 26 May did it appear that that particular speech, for which leave to publish had been sought by this first newspaper, appeared in considerable detail in a newspaper supporting the Government. I think that is a particularly unfortunate situation, the first newspaper having been one which happened in the main to support the Opposition and oppose the Government. It was published in Johannesburg and it was moreover stated that permission had been given for this article to be published by the hon. the Minister. At the time of the publication of the article in the Government-supporting Sunday newspaper the other newspaper had still not been granted permission. Indeed when later the consent was sought and reference was made to the Minister’s private secretary the reply was that the document was still on the Minister’s desk awaiting his decision. The position still is, or certainly was on 2 June, that no reply had come. I think the Minister is dealing here with a difficult power. I think it is most important that there be complete fair dealing in a matter of this kind. I find it very difficult to believe that there was intentional discrimination against the newspaper which first made the request. I certainly hope that is not the case and never will be the case. I think the Minister owes this House an explanation on the point. I would seek his assurance that there will be no discrimination at all in the handling of newspapers, whether for or against the Government or taking no stand in political matters. I think it is important that the House should know the principle on which the Minister operates in taking his decisions.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) because the matter to which he referred is not as unrelated to this question as would appear from the way in which he discussed it. The purpose of the restriction on the publication of the statements of certain people is to prevent newspapers, like some of those we have here in South Africa, serving as a sounding-board for the statements of those people; to prevent statements that are made overseas being sent over to South Africa with all speed in order to have a certain effect here and so that that effect can in its turn have another effect when it is re-echoed from this country. The hon. member also knows that the newspaper to which he referred carried a report in the same issue in which that report appeared—it may have been an earlier issue—in which full information was given about a newspaper that was carrying on undermining activities, a communist newspaper, whose name that newspaper mentioned, a paper that is published in Britain and which people in South Africa did not know existed; and that that same “respectable” newspaper to which the hon. member referred was so friendly towards the publishers of that communist newspaper as to bring the existence of that paper to the attention of the people in South Africa. Not only that; they also gave a full report of what was contained in that communist paper. Not only that; they gave a full report of the aims of the publishers—“to establish contact” with communists in South Africa. And not only that; the paper was friendly enough to the publishers and organizers of that communist paper to give the full London address to which people could send their subscriptions.

Are you in favour of the Minister discriminating between newspapers in exercising that power?

The hon. member understands very well what I have said. I do not think that the hon. member for Pinelands is as stupid as he tries to make out with that question.

I want to come back to a single point that was raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he asked the hon. the Minister whether the A.N.C. was communist or African nationalist. I asked him by way of interjection whether he knew. I meant it honestly because I thought that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition had made himself acquainted with the judgment of the judges in the High Treason Trial. They said this—

That was the finding of the Supreme Court.

Those people were found not guilty.

Yes, not guilty of high treason but we are dealing here with the question which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked in regard to whether the A.N.C. was communistically inspired.

There was an alternative charge.

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to tell me that that was not the finding of the court? The court found that the A.N.C. was in favour of a communist dictatorship. How can an organization like the A.N.C. favour a communist state in South Africa if it is not led by communists? Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition not know that Sisulu is a listed communist and that this happened while he was Secretary-General to the A.N.C.? Does he not know that the people who were in control of the Congress of Democrats saw to it that they included the leaders of the A.N.C. amongst their followers? One can read books by people like the communist Edward Roux who says that as early as the ’twenties, communists met their match temporarily in the I.C.U.; that they made common cause with the A.N.C. and that consistently since those times the leadership of the A.N.C. has been linked up with the communist party.

I gave them the full history of the case.

Precisely, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister has given them the history of this matter. What is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition trying to suggest to the country by means of that question? What is he trying to tell the country? That when the Government and the Minister say that in the A.N.C. we have to deal with an extension of Communism we are seeing a ghost or that we do not know what we are doing? That is what he wants to try to tell the country because otherwise why would he ask that question? It is clear as daylight to anyone where we stand in regard to the leadership of the A.N.C. As the hon. the Minister put it, the A.N.C. is “communist-inspired and -led”. Those are the facts that are before all of us. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition puts that kind of question in order to cast doubts upon the wisdom of the action of the Government. He proved this towards the end of his speech when he said that the action of the Government leads to the “spread” of these organizations.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.