announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Somerset East owing to the death on 31 January 1981 of Mr. Stephanus Johannes Hofmeyr van der Spuy.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

The late Mr. Van der Spuy, who was well-known to all of us, enthusiastically rendered public service both inside and outside Parliament. As a clergyman, he played a prominent role for 15 years in the organization of his church. He was a man of culture and also made his mark in the field of education. While a clergyman, he played an important role in the educational sphere in the part of the world in which he served. He also devoted his energies wholeheartedly to the founding of the University of Port Elizabeth. I think he was a member of the committee of action.

Due to his illness, his duties as member of Parliament were performed under difficult circumstances in recent years. Nevertheless he performed his duties scrupulously. His friends were all impressed by his capacity to carry on with his work in spite of the illness which, in the end, caused his death.

Since 1979 he was also chairman of the Select Committee on Pensions. It was always a pleasure to pay a call on him and his wife. He was a good host and always a pleasant person to converse with. We should like to convey to his wife and children our deepest sympathies on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to support the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

The death of our colleague was sudden but not unexpected. We in this House were aware that he was battling against the illness which eventually claimed his life. We were struck by his courage and by the way in which he performed his task in this House in spite of his illness. He was a popular member of this House. He had a mischievous sense of humour, which I believe commended him to all of us.

Our best wishes and our sympathy go to his family in their grief.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself and my party with the motion of the hon. the Prime Minister.

†I also want to associate myself and my party with the words that have been spoken about our late colleague. He was a friendly person, a quiet man, someone who had no enemies in this House. He served this House and his constituency faithfully despite his health problems during recent times. We shall miss him as one of those who helped to create the spirit of this Parliament of mutual respect without regard to political differences.

I associate the NRP with the words of condolence extended to his family, and I support the motion.

laid upon the Table the Third Report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1980, as follows:

Your Committee, having heard further evidence, begs to report as follows:

1. (1) Administration Boards
   1. (a) Your Committee confirms the view expressed by it regarding Administration Boards in its Second Report, viz. that it is perturbed at the unsatisfactory internal control measures, the general financial administration and the investment policy of certain boards.
   2. (b) In this connection your Committee wishes to point out in particular that the boards apparently devote little attention to their cash flow requirements, in consequence of which larger amounts are invested than are required for reserve purposes, with the result that optimum utilization of funds for the purpose for which they were obtained is not achieved. Your Committee accordingly recommends that particular attention be given to this aspect when steps are taken to place the above-mentioned matters on a sound footing.
   3. (c) Serious doubt has arisen about the administrative efficiency of Administration Boards, and your Committee is of the opinion that the Department should exercise greater control and supervision over the Administration Boards.
   4. (d) As Administration Boards occupy a strategic position in regard to the delicate race relations situation in South Africa, your Committee is concerned that what in some cases are clearly administrative inefficiencies on the part of these Boards may result in sources of friction being created in the community.
   5. (e) Your Committee wishes to lay down as a principle that the keeping of accounting records should not be undertaken by firms responsible for the audit of these records.
2. (2) Accounts of the former Department of Water Affairs
   • Your Committee, having heard evidence, is of the opinion that it is necessary to improve the accounting methods and the presentation of accounts of the Directorate of Water Affairs of the Department of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation (the former Department of Water Affairs) and that it is unsatisfactory that large debts which apparently cannot be recovered are carried over without being reported on. Your Committee recommends that steps be taken to remedy this situation.
3. (3) Other reports, returns and statements of account
   • Your Committee has no comment to offer on the other reports, returns and statements of account referred to it.

G. J. KOTZÉ,
Chairman.

Committee Rooms,
House of Assembly.
15 January 1981.

Report, proceedings and evidence to be printed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will have noticed that no contentious matters have been included in this Bill. A medical scheme for Indians in the service of the central Government, provincial administrations, local authorities and statutory bodies was established in 1977 on the initiative of the Government. The scheme, known as Sanitas, is subsidized by the State and the other bodies concerned on a liberal basis and has proved to be of great benefit to its members. Membership of the scheme is at this stage, however, still voluntary but the time is approaching when compulsory membership could become a condition of service. The amendment I now propose in clause 1 of the Bill is therefore merely to anticipate such a step. The wording of the proposed amendment is the same as that of section 17(s) of the Public Service Act, 1957 (Act. No. 54 of 1957).

The proposed amendment to section 18 of the Act is merely intended to describe more clearly the procedure to be followed in the case of a teacher who has been found to be unfit or incapable of performing his duties efficiently. According to the present wording of section 18(s)(b) of the Act the further investigation should be undertaken as soon as possible after the expiry of 30 days from the date of the notice. This to my mind is unfair because such a short period obviously does not afford the teacher sufficient time to improve his performance or to overcome any shortcomings that have been revealed. The proposed amendment now clearly indicates that the further investigation, whether by the same officer or by a person other than the one who submitted the first report, shall be undertaken after the expiry of at least 90 days but not more than one year from the date of the notice.

Section 33 should actually have been amended in 1979 when the definition of “nursery school” was deleted by the Indians Education Amendment Act, 1979 (Act. No. 39 of 1979) but it was unfortunately overlooked at the time.

I may also mention that the amendments now proposed were considered and approved by the Indian Council.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset on behalf of this side of the House to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister on his recent promotion and to wish him well in the performance of his tasks.

He went to a very bad school.

I may say, Sir, that since my return to this House three-and-a-half years ago the hon. the Deputy Minister as an ordinary member of this House was always a very friendly and courteous person.

He went to a very good school.

I sincerely hope that he will retain that same friendliness and courteousness in his new capacity although I know that in our dealings with one another we shall not always agree with one another. However, I look forward to a friendly association with him.

At first glance, the measure that the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced appears to be a fairly innocuous one but I want to tell him immediately that we in these benches are concerned about the extent of the provisions of clause 1 of the Bill and the impact of those provisions on the people concerned. Clause 1 of the Bill now before the House adds yet another ground for judging misconduct which, in terms of the Act, is punishable by the dismissal of the person concerned from a post in the teaching profession. It adds this in the following circumstances, according to this Bill: If—

This is a very far-reaching instance of misconduct. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that he anticipates that it will become compulsory for the people affected by this Bill to belong to medical aid societies. Then the following is added—

This is extremely wide and as it can be used for dismissal, it seems to be totally out of proportion to some of the transgressions which may take place.

If it is intended to operate against people who knowingly and willingly try to defraud medical aid societies to which they belong or something of that kind, then the Bill should say so, but simply to refer to any person who “contravenes any provision of the rules of the constitution of a medical aid society” is far too wide a definition as a ground of misconduct.

It is nearly as bad as marrying a divorced man.

Quite right.

The constitution and rules of a medical aid society, as one has seen in a number of these documents, can cover a very wide field. They can be fairly complicated documents. Members who belong to these societies might quite easily find themselves in contravention of these rules by a mere act of omission on their part, by a failure perhaps to render an account or by the late payment of a fee. Surely, this should not be held to be misconduct sufficient to justify the dismissal of that person. I have no doubt that this is probably not the intention of either the drafter of the legislation or the hon. the Minister. The Bill, however, provides too wide a definition, and unless the hon. the Deputy Minister can give us a satisfactory explanation, perhaps during the Committee Stage, we cannot at this stage support the Bill in its present form because of the reasons which I have stated. We shall certainly oppose the clause when it comes to the Committee Stage.

The second clause of the Bill appears to be an improvement in draftsmanship. As the hon. the Deputy Minister had indicated in his remarks, it provides that if the person affected wants to have an investigation into a complaint or report lodged against him, that investigation is to be conducted by a person other than the one who has lodged such a complaint in the first instance. It must, however, be done by notice within 30 days after receiving notice of the investigation. We are quite happy that that is an improvement on the existing situation.

The third clause is merely a matter of terminology to deal with the new term “pre-primary school” instead of the old term “nursery school”.

With those comments I must indicate that we cannot support the Bill at Second Reading, because we are concerned about the clause to which I have referred. We shall look forward to an explanation by the hon. the Deputy Minister, certainly during the Committee Stage if not when he replies to the Second Reading debate. Such an explanation may assist us.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Musgrave in congratulating the new hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member mentioned the good characteristics and qualities of the hon. the Deputy Minister and we, as colleagues who have served for several years in the House with the hon. the Deputy Minister, can most probably add several such qualities to those mentioned by the hon. member for Musgrave. On behalf of our side of the House, I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and wish him everything of the best in dealing with this very important portfolio to which he too will have to make a contribution.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Musgrave, who in general is capable of giving one some opposition, did not include criticism of much substance in his short speech this afternoon. The changes that are to be brought about by the Bill, do not contain anything sinister as far as we on this side of the House are concerned. They do not contain anything that we consider to be unfair. In fact, I think the changes merely contribute towards good control and the essential concomitant disciplinary measures. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is no male fides in introducing the legislation. I think the hon. member did in fact say so. That is why I cannot quite understand his concern, nor why he is opposing the Second Reading. The only complaint which the hon. member lodged, is that the provision concerned is too wide in its definition and consequently may unfairly involve some people. I do not believe that the hon. member has convinced the House at all that his criticism of the provision concerned and the problems that he experiences with it, are in fact of a serious nature. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister will easily be able to grant the hon. member what he wants. We on this side support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches join the two previous speakers in wishing the hon. the Deputy Minister well and in congratulating him on his appointment. We in these benches also know him to be a very fair and reasonable person and we look forward to having a lot to do with him in the future in this field that we are debating at the moment.

We cannot quite agree with the official Opposition that dismissal is an automatic consequence of a contravention of any of the provisions and rules of a medical aid society. I can see that there is a problem area here and we will be interested to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister has to say about it. But we do view the pending compulsory medical aid scheme for Indian school teachers as being nothing other than a good thing. At the moment it is a voluntary scheme, and this is never really the answer when it comes to medical aid schemes. We will welcome the day when it is made compulsory and we were pleased to note what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say in his introductory remarks in this connection.

As far as the next clause is concerned, the amendment to section 18 of the Act, we see this too as an improvement, mainly for the reason outlined by the hon. the Deputy Minister, in that it does give a school teacher who could have all manner of difficulties a much fairer chance of rehabilitating himself, of showing that his lapse in performance could have been due to circumstances beyond his control. At the moment he is undeniably at a distinct disadvantage, and this amendment certainly gives the teacher a far, far better opportunity of putting his position to rights with the authorities—in this instance, I would assume, with the inspectorate.

The third clause is obviously something that is necessary. We note that it was omitted from the previous legislation amending the Act and we are pleased that this is now being rectified.

With these few words we support this measure and we too await with interest the remarks that the hon. the Deputy Minister may have to offer in reply to the objection raised by the hon. member for Musgrave in connection with this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in the position today of having to agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga to a large extent in so far as he alleged that there was not much substance to the hon. member for Musgrave’s objection to the Bill.

In actual fact, the hon. member for Musgrave is opposed to clause 1 only. He indicated that he and his party did not object to the other clauses of the Bill. If we then proceed to analyse the objection of the hon. member for Musgrave, we find that basically he raised two matters, aspects that he considers to be objections to the Bill. In the first place he says that the definition of “misconduct” is too wide. If one examines the conduct of any person in any connection at any time with a view to evaluating it, I believe that one can say whether it is basically proper or improper. It is either “proper conduct” or “misconduct”, according to the norm that one is applying. In this case, the norm is the rules and provisions of the scheme to which the person concerned belongs. If he contravenes those rules, his conduct is improper. Therefore, I cannot find any objection to the definition being stated in such a way that a contravention of the rules and provisions of this scheme is considered as misconduct for the purposes of this scheme, because this is basically what the Bill is about. The Bill does not declare it an offence.

If we look at section 17 of the principal act, we see very clearly what the implications of a contravention of the rules, of the regulations and the provisions of the scheme entails. The implications thereof concern membership of this scheme only. In other words, the norm applies to a limited field only, and I am of the opinion that it is quite correct within that field to say that the behaviour of such a person is improper if he acts contrary to those rules and regulations of the scheme.

The hon. member for Musgrave also said that even an omission could be considered as misconduct. In law, it is a perfectly acceptable principle that one can also commit an offence by omission. Therefore, if the hon. member makes the statement that a person can also be guilty of misconduct by omission, he is correct, but he is not actually saying anything new, because this is in fact obvious. But it is definitely no justification whatsoever for any reservations regarding the definition as it stands.

However, I think one must look further than just at the wording of the definition. If one takes into account the scope of the relevant section in the principal act, and one places the proposed new provision, as contained in this clause, in the context of the entire section, one must agree with the hon. member for Rissik that there is nothing sinister whatsoever in this clause. Then it is simply in line with what has already been stated in section 15. It is simply a further logical extension of what is already stated in section 16. That is why I am convinced that the objection of the hon. member for Musgrave’s has any merit whatsoever, and I agree with the hon. member for Rissik that any possible objection concerning the bona fides that may exist in connection with the proposed legislation, can be very easily refuted by the hon. the Deputy Minister. Consequently I am pleased to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to what the hon. member for Mossel Bay said, I hope that you will allow me to make a few general remarks. On this occasion, I should like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for the opportunity that I have been granted of returning as an indirectly elected member to this House, an institution for which I have developed a great respect and love over the years. I am very grateful towards my colleagues for nominating me as a candidate, and I am also very grateful to the electoral college for being placed back in this House, even though it is just for a very short time, viz. for the duration of the short session of Parliament. I must add that of course I assume that not all of the members of the electoral college voted for me. That would have been too much to ask. However, I have noted little change in the House. There are, in fact, a few new faces, but the cliches, the established opinions and principles that are being stated have changed little, in my opinion. The only change that I have discovered, is that the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development is no longer as fond of me as he was before. But that will sort itself out.

To come back to the Bill, I should like to associate myself with the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Musgrave. I also listened carefully to the speeches by the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Rissik and the hon. member for Mossel Bay. I accept that there is no mala fides or sinister motive involved. As a result of that very acceptance of the bona fides of the hon. the Deputy Minister, I should like to make a serious representation to him not to continue with this Bill at this stage.

What is it actually about? It is about the fact that a specific action by an Indian teacher can be considered misconduct in terms of the Act. The first question that we must ask ourselves, is: “What are the implications of such misconduct if the teacher concerned is found guilty thereof?” Let us look at section 17(23) of the Indians Education Act. There we read what could happen to such a person, viz. that—

1. (a) the person charged be cautioned or reprimanded;
2. (b) a fine, not exceeding R200 be imposed upon the person charged;
3. (c) the person charged be transferred to another post;
4. (d) the emoluments or grade or both the emoluments and grade of the person charged be reduced; or
5. (e) the person charged be discharged from the service of his employer or called upon to resign therefrom.

Sir, these penalties that have a bearing on being found guilty of misconduct are apparently very serious penalties, or may be very serious penalties which can be implemented in such a way. That is why it seems to me, also out of respect for the rule of law which I know the hon. the Minister as well as the House would like to maintain, that, therefore, in view of this type of penalty we should be very careful and be very sure of the occasions when we have the right to impose this type of penalty upon anyone.

I am experiencing a few problems here. Firstly, there is the problem to which the hon. member for Musgrave has already referred, viz. that the Bill has a bearing on any contravention of the regulations of such a medical aid fund, or whatever. I feel the hon. the Deputy Minister will concede that it is in fact completely wrong and illogical to be creating offences here as it were—in the form of misconduct—if we do not even know what those regulations entail. It seems totally impossible to me that any logical person could determine whether the proposed amendment is right, whether it has merit and whether it can be justified in terms of our own views of jurisprudence, before we know exactly what offences such a person can commit in order to be found guilty of misconduct. We can establish this only when we know what regulations regulating such a medical aid scheme are. Therefore, what we are being asked to do here, is to give our approval in anticipation to penalties for misconduct which has not yet been defined.

The penalties are already stated in the Act.

We do not know what the regulations of those medical aid funds are going to be. Therefore, it nevertheless seems to me that with the best will in the world we cannot say—and I accept the bona fides of the hon. the Deputy Minister: “If you are found guilty of something which has not yet been defined, you will possibly be penalized in such or such a way.” Surely this is completely illogical. We would not have done this in any other case. Surely the House would not accept legislation for imposing penalties for offences that do not yet exist, but which may be created. Therefore, on the basis of that alone, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his serious consideration to withdrawing this Bill at this stage, until we know what the regulations of the medical aid fund consist of.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he will concede me the point that there is a big difference in the nature of the penalties for which the Act already makes provision and that this does in fact indicate that there may be serious and less serious offences?

The nature of the offence is not at issue, but the nature of the penalty that may be imposed for the offence. Consequently, that penalty may include a whole series of things, as I indicated by quoting from the Act.

The most serious of the penalties is that the person concerned may be dismissed.

That is much worse than a fine of R200.

That may well be, but it does not affect the principle. The principle is in fact that it is wrong to impose penalties for offences or causes of misconduct which have not yet been defined. To my mind, it is a fundamental contraversial point which—and I say this quite frankly—provides the hon. the Deputy Minister with adequate grounds for withdrawing the Bill.

Once again accepting the bona fides, I want to say that, in my opinion, the comparison which the hon. the Deputy Minister made with the provisions contained in legislation with regard to Public servants, is not completely valid. As far as I am aware, this provision does not apply to other teachers, for instance. The Indian teacher is not going to look at whether this provision applies to Public servants, but whether it applies to other teachers too, and not only White teachers, but Coloured teachers as well. As far as I am aware—and I shall be pleased to be corrected if this is not the case—the provision that a contravention of the regulations of the medical aid scheme is not a reason for being found guilty of misconduct, does not apply to the other teachers in South Africa. If my view is correct, I can honestly not understand why we should make an exception in the case of the Indian teacher. What makes it even worse, is that those regulations are not even compulsory as yet. They are still to be made compulsory. On the basis of that, I want to say that in all honesty and sincerity we cannot support this measure. We cannot support it due to the fact that more profound principles are in fact at stake.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I associate myself with the remark that the hon. member for Musgrave made here. In reply to the explanation which the hon. the Deputy Minister gave, I also want to say that the implications of this appear to be—and I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether my interpretation is correct or not—that as the Act reads at present, there is no coercive provision that the secretary should order that re-investigation within a certain period. In terms of the Act, it must merely be carried out as soon as possible after the period of 30 days. No obligation therefore rests upon him. Apparently it means that it should take place as soon as possible after the 30 days. As I interpret the amendment, the secretary could now wait a full year before ordering that further investigation. If the teacher is found guilty of misconduct and he does not accept the report and therefore requests a further investigation by a third, independent person, if he takes that trouble, it seems to me that he has the right to expect that that further investigation takes place as soon as possible. In theory, and as I interpret it, there is a possibility that he could be kept on pins and needles for a full 12 months until the secretary decides to order the further investigation. As the Act reads at present, the secretary is not obliged to act within a specific period, but surely the intention of the legislation, as it is worded here, is clear. According to that, he must give a hearing to the request for a further investigation as soon as possible. Under these circumstances, I have no other choice but to support the motion of the hon. member for Musgrave and to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to give his serious consideration to holding this matter back in view of this. I do not think we can lose anything by it. I do not think he can lose anything by provisionally holding back this measure.

Mr. Speaker, it really seems to me that both the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member Prof. Olivier are trying to make a mountain out of a mole-hill with regard to clause 1 of the Bill. Before I go any further, I just want to refer to the last remark by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, when he said that it is a weakness of the legislation that this provision is now being moved before the regulations have been promulgated. If the hon. member reads clause 1, he will see that the clause will only be enforceable after the regulations have been promulgated and after membership of the medical aid scheme has become compulsory. I think the important thing to bear in mind is the point that the hon. member for Umhlanga made, viz. that the inevitable action that must follow this and other examples of misconduct or offences, is not necessarily dismissal. The logical consequence is not that every case of proven misconduct will be considered in the same serious or less serious fight. Surely it is true, as the hon. the Deputy Minister put it, if one looks at the Public Service Act, and one also looks at the various educational ordinances throughout the country in the different provinces, that long fists of types of misconduct or types of offences are included there and that no one can allege that every type of misconduct mentioned there can be equally serious. To mention one example only: In the Natal education ordinance it is considered a misdemeanour or an offence if a teacher comments on the action of any provincial administration or of the central Government. If that were to be applied to the letter of the law, our teachers throughout the country would not have been able to give their views on salaries, conditions of service or whatever, because this is commenting upon the actions of the provincial administrations and the central Government. Therefore one must accept that when it comes to any list of misdemeanours, malpractices or misconduct, some discretion must be left to the controlling officers, and as the hon. member Prof. Olivier also said quite correctly, it is mentioned here that there is quite a variety of penal measures, from a mere reprimand to the most extreme, i.e. dismissal. I think this House should leave that discretion to the various departments, in this case the various teaching authorities.

However, there is also another consideration as to why the behaviour of an Indian teacher towards his medical aid scheme is of particular importance to the Indian teaching profession. Any insurer will be able to say—and I think this is common knowledge—that there is a very great variation in socio-economic standards within the Indian community and that there is a difference in the life expectancy of the various levels of the Indian community. There are socioeconomic groups in the Indian community who have the same life expectancy as Western Whites and there are others who have a shorter life expectancy. That is why I want to propose that it is even more essential for the Indian community than for the White community that the provisions of a medical aid scheme should be strictly adhered to. Why? It is because the whole question of the economic viability of such a medical aid scheme is involved. If malpractices with regard to a medical aid scheme should become the order of the day on the part of the Indian teachers, or should be tolerated, it may mean that rates and premiums would have to be increased to the detriment of other Indian teachers or of the Indian teaching profession as such in the country. In view of these considerations, I believe it is essential for this clause to be added to the definition of “malpractices”, and I want to suggest that hon. members of the official Opposition are really trying to read too much into what is in fact an essential provision.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to thank the hon. members for Musgrave, Rissik and Umhlanga very sincerely for their words of congratulation. It is a privilege for me to serve in this capacity in the Department of Internal Affairs. It is my special privilege to be able to work with the hon. the Minister who is responsible for this portfolio and department. I am particularly pleased with his exceptional leadership in this connection. Inter alia, this department is responsible for dealing with the interests of the Brown people and the Indians. On this occasion, therefore, I should again like to commit myself to saying that we shall only work in the interests of these two population groups and in the interests of sound relationships. In addition I also wish to express thanks for the support for this statutory amendment, which was expressed by the hon. member for Rissik, the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Mossel Bay.

The hon. member for Umhlanga, I think—if I was listening correctly—pointed out one problem. It was that the participation in these medical schemes ought to be made compulsory as soon as possible. On this point we are in full agreement with the hon. member, and we hope that this will be done as soon as possible. At this stage it is unfortunately not possible to determine a fixed date. However, we are proceeding with the measure. We agree with the hon. member that it should be put into operation as soon as possible.

That brings me now to the hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of welcoming the hon. member Prof. Olivier back to this House.

It is only for a short while.

The hon. member for Carletonville says it is only for a short while.

Just as long as he does not stay here for long.

I must say that I would rather find myself in the hands of the voters of Oudtshoorn than in the hands of the electoral college in which the hon. member Prof. Olivier found himself. The members of that electoral college are a few. On the other hand, one can accomplish quite a few things with them. For example one can invite them regularly to a delicious luncheon or dinner. With a little goodwill here and there it is just possible that when it comes to voting again, they will vote for one again; although I believe that it will be very difficult to persuade the hon. member for Pinelands to vote for the hon. member Prof. Olivier a second time. Being a clergyman myself, I can say that one cannot easily rely on them when it comes to matters of this nature. [Interjections.]

Listen to who is talking.

I wish to express the hope that the hon. member Prof. Olivier, during the period in which he will serve in this House, will make the same contributions he made in the past. We know him to be a person who considers matters carefully, who prefers, in the process, to use the commonsense he was endowed with well, and we also think that he will do this in furthering the interests of our country.

But now I must point out that the hon. member Prof. Olivier was a little cruel in his first appearance after his return to this House. This is the first Bill which I have to deal with as Deputy Minister in this House. Hon. members probably noticed the papers trembling in my hands. My nerves were rather shaky today, Mr. Speaker, and then the hon. member Prof. Olivier demanded, with the first Bill I had to deal with here, that I withdraw it. [Interjections.] Oh well, the hon. member could do it in the days when he was a university professor. He could say to a student: “Go and do this piece of work again.” However, I want to put it to him that those days are past. Sir, I do not intend to withdraw this Bill. [Interjections.] It really is a pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to find that one can say to a professor “I am not going to do it.” In earlier days the students simply had to listen and do what they were told or they did not pass.

The hon. member for Musgrave and the hon. member Prof. Olivier raised one main objection to clause 1 of the Bill. The position is that section 16 of the Act defines every contravention by a teacher which is considered to be misconduct. Steps can only be taken if the person concerned has committed one of those defined contraventions. It is already very clearly defined what misconduct is and what these contraventions are. For this reason this definition is now being inserted so that the department may take steps when membership of the Fund becomes compulsory. It is true that the Fund itself can take steps against a person by, inter alia, recovering excess moneys paid or claimed, or the Fund can itself terminate a person’s membership, but that still does not give the department as employer the right to take steps against such person because there is no statutory provision whatsoever for that. In other words, one has misconduct in respect of the existing medical fund, but it is not defined in the Act so that the department can also take steps. However, when membership is compulsory and when it is part of a person’s conditions of service, the Fund may no longer terminate membership. I should like to inform those two hon. members that what is being done here in this case already applies to the thousands of public servants in our country, including the White teachers. In other words, what we now wish to do here has already been applied in practice for many years to all officials in the employ of the State. No problems have ever been experienced in this connection. Nor is it our intention suddenly to act otherwise in respect of Indian teachers. We shall simply treat everyone alike. All public servants—and this includes all teachers—are treated in the same way, and now we also wish to effect this amendment in respect of Indian education.

May I ask a question?

Yes, certainty.

If I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, he was referring to teachers in the service of the State. I wish to know whether this provision also applies in respect of ordinary teachers, teachers in the provincial service as well as Coloured teachers?

Mr. Speaker, I am not certain what the position is in respect of Coloured teachers. I can establish what the position in that connection is, and then reply during the Committee Stage. However, I do not think that it would apply to Coloured teachers. I am almost certain of that. But I do wish to say that action is taken very carefully in respect of misconduct. A very thorough investigation is carried out, and again this applies to all teachers. It is true that in such a case the reputation of the profession and the school to which such a person is attached is at stake. To tell the truth, the status of the entire teaching profession is at stake. Consequently it is not the intention here to act in a reckless way, the intention is quite simply to take steps when contravention occurs in this connection. There is nothing remotely sinister in this legislation and under the circumstances I cannot therefore comply with the request made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Unemployment Insurance Board, on which both employer organizations and trade unions are represented, recommended that the Unemployment Insurance Act be amended in certain respects. I should like to explain the proposed amendments.

Clause 1: Since the Act no longer differentiates in any way between population groups, the definition of “Black” is being deleted.

This amendment also has a bearing on clause 2 of the Bill, by means of which section 2(2)(b) is also being deleted. The aforesaid provision excludes Blacks employed at gold and coal mines as “contributors” from the Act, and consequently they are not entitled to any benefits. However, it is felt that this is unfair to this category of employees, and consequently the Chamber of Mines agreed that this provision could be done away with.

I come now to clauses 3, 4 and 5. The existing section 36 on illness benefits provides that an applicant should have been employed as a contributor for not less than 13 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the date on which a period of unemployment is deemed to have commenced. As far as maternity benefits in terms of section 37 are concerned, an applicant should have been employed as a contributor for not less than 18 weeks during the 52 weeks immediately preceding the expected date of her confinement or the date of birth, as the case may be, when the application was made on or after said date of birth. The existing section 38, which deals with payments to dependants of deceased contributors, provides that a deceased contributor shall have been employed as a contributor for not less than 13 weeks during the five years immediately preceding his death. The amendment of these articles will mean that apart from service as a contributor, service other than as a contributor will be recognized for qualifying purposes, provided of course that an applicant or a deceased contributor accumulated the required benefit credits as contributor and complies with the qualification requirements as far as periods of service are concerned. This will result in a relaxation to bring them into line with the requirements in respect of ordinary unemployment benefits.

Allow me to point out a practical example of what “otherwise in employment” means: A woman expecting a child was a contributor for many years, but for a year or two prior to the expected date of confinement was employed in the field of agriculture, which falls outside the scope of the Act. Consequently she was not employed as a “contributor” but was in fact “otherwise in employment” and consequently did not qualify for maternity benefits. The proposed amendments will remedy this position.

The amendments are to the benefit of the workers, and I trust that they will meet with the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall be supporting the Bill. I want to make just a few comments on one of the more important aspects of it.

In many small amending Bills one very often finds a very, very important amendment. This Bill falls into that category, and I therefore want to try to highlight this over and above the words the hon. the Minister has just used. In so far as clause 1 is concerned, we naturally are glad that the deletion which is sought will take place. This is in line with many of the improvements which have been made under the direction of the hon. the Minister. I think this deletion follows some of the amendments which were brought about during the last two sessions of Parliament.

When we come to clause 2, which refers to section 2 of the principal Act and proposes the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), I think we should pause here for a moment because this is a very important amendment. At the moment, under the definition of “contributor” there are certain exceptions made; indeed there is quite a long list of them, and amongst those are—

That touches a great number of workers in South Africa, and I think we should congratulate the hon. the Minister for taking this step. It is far-seeing, and I believe it corrects something which up to now has been wrong and it does give some security to people who are in one of the largest industries in our country.

Going back to section 2(2)(a), we find that amongst the people who are excluded from being contributors are those who come to the Republic to work and, obviously, work on our gold and coal mines. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) means that Black mineworkers in our gold and coal mines who come from inside the Republic, but who are not necessarily living in the proximity of the gold or coal mine concerned, will now qualify. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister will reply to this particular query because this is very important. There are many contract workers whose present position almost necessitates that the whole definition of “migrant worker” be redefined. In the recent past a migrant worker was very definitely someone who came from his home in the rural areas, who depended in large measure on a subsistence level, or certainly had a small piece of land, and who came to the mine concerned, worked there for a period—perhaps six, nine or twelve months—and then often returned, sometimes for six months, two years or even longer, and when the necessity arose for him to replenish his cash resources would return to the mine. Many workers who no longer have access to that land, for example, are now totally dependent on the wages they receive from the mines concerned. They are, even though their families are not with them, now working on such a regular basis and with the call-up system now being used extensively in the mining industry, they are hardly migrant workers in terms of the other old definition. As I read the clause, it means that this kind of worker is now going to be able to contribute and to receive benefits from unemployment insurance, with the exception of course of those who come from outside the Republic, because the first paragraph is not being amended.

I am not sure how many workers are involved in this, but it must be a considerable number, and I assume that the Chamber of Mines, the various mining groups, have given an indication of how this is going to affect them. More important, I think, is that what we will have to take note of is the fact that in many instances there will be workers paying their contributions and, for one reason or another leaving—notwithstanding the argument I have used up to now—not being in a position to claim the requisite benefits. So from an administrative point of view it seems we are going to have to look very carefully indeed at the situation to make sure, not only that the contributions are made, but also that the benefits accrue in the appropriate manner.

Overall I would say that this deletion is a step forward. It is obviously going to include a great number of workers who have been excluded up to now—and this is right and proper—and I think it is also going to make quite a difference to the Fund. I naturally assume that all the implications that flow from this have been taken into account.

This brings me to the other changes which have already been mentioned. I do not wish to add very much to what the hon. the Minister has already stated. I am glad for the particular example he gave when introducing this measure. I also think that this is an improvement, and I think that, all in all, this is a piece of legislation that deserves the full support of the House. We shall support the Bill accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that the hon. member for Pinelands and I agree in this House, but I should like to agree with him that the hon. the Minister of Manpower Utilization deserves the gratitude and appreciation of the entire House when it comes to the introduction of this type of legislation. It is also very clear that this measure meets with general support. It testifies to there being no stagnation in the new Department of Manpower Utilization, and that efforts are still being made to keep South Africa in the foreground as regards the adaptation and improvement of its industrial and labour legislation. As the hon. member for Pinelands said, one wonders why it was in fact the work force of the gold and the coal mines which were singled out and who were not also able to share in the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the legislation as such in this respect.

From a historical point of view a very large percentage of this work force were originally imported Black people, in other words foreigners, people who came from beyond our borders and who worked in those two categories of mines. Over the years this percentage changed, and today a larger percentage of them are South African Black people, who are doing this work. The hon. member for Pinelands asked how many Black people were involved. To the best of my knowledge it is in the vicinity of 141 000 additional people whom it will now be possible to admit to the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Hon. members might find it interesting to know that the present contributions of the Fund are in the region of R3 580 000. At present the fund stands at between R215 and R218 million. This money earns interest of approximately R15 million per annum. The income from annual contributions to the Fund is in the region of R85 million, but the expenditure in the form of payments amounts to approximately R82 million. Consequently there is a very small margin between actual payments and income. That is why it is probably impossible at this stage to determine what the effect on the reserves of the fund would be with the admission of an additional 141 000 employees. I think it would be a good thing if the hon. the Minister and the department were to keep a careful eye on these reserves of ours, because if we examine the ratio between actual expenditure per annum and reserves, we see that actual expenditure—and that does not include administrative costs—amounts to 2 ½times the income which we have in reserve. Perhaps it would be a good thing to see whether we cannot boost this reserve a little to get a safer margin.

I believe that we all agree that we should draw no distinction, when it comes to this type of benefit, between the various categories of employees. The hon. the Minister put it in this way: Suppose a man worked for an insurance company for 10 years, contributed to the Fund, and subsequently came to work for Parliament. In terms of the provisions of section 2 he is excluded and forfeits what he has accumulated over the years.

But in terms of this new provision he may, if he was a contributor, continue to enjoy those benefits. Of course that does not mean that the hon. member for Pinelands, for example, would be able to do so, because it is always subject to the limit of R12 000, and a person who works for Harry Oppenheimer, does not work for R12 000 or less.

On the condition that we look after our reserves and the contributions carefully, and that we ascertain, when these additional people are admitted, which way the graph in the form of claims is moving, I think this measure is a good one, one on which we may congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department. Consequently we support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, the NRP also welcomes the amending legislation which the hon. the Minister has introduced here today. But in saying that I would like to make a few comments regarding the various clauses. I should also like to put one or two questions to the hon. the Minister. I am, however, going to deal first with the comments by the hon. member for Pretoria East. From the latest available statistics it is interesting to note that at the end of 1979 some 28% of the Black mineworkers in South Africa were what one could term “South African” mineworkers. Give or take a few per cent either way the hon. member and I agree on this. In the course of my speech I will refer back to what the hon. member for Pretoria East said.

In the first place, as regards clause 1, we certainly welcome the deletion of the word “Black” from the definition of a “contributor”. I think this is a milestone in the perception of the Government, in particular of the hon. the Minister’s department, regarding the fact that a worker is a worker, be he Black, Asiatic, Coloured, male or female. This is a very considerable improvement in the attitude and perception of the Government towards the workers of South Africa. It is a great pity that the amending legislation does not go further in terms of the people excluded from the legislation. I would like to make a specific appeal to the hon. the Minister to ask his department to take another look at the exclusion of agricultural workers from social security benefits, such as unemployment insurance. The reason for this is because of technological trends. I have raised this with the hon. the Minister before. There are many chicken farmers and fruit packing industries which are peripheral in terms of the definition. Here I am referring specifically to the hundreds, almost thousands, of workers on chicken farms who are really industrial workers but who are still classified as agricultural workers. I think the hon. the Minister’s department should take another look at the definition of a contributor in terms of the agricultural sector, especially when we remember that no less than 30 000 farming units have been demised during the last decade. If one takes an average of 10 workers per farming unit, it means that at least 300 000 previously employed Black workers are now without employment, not even to mention their dependants. Those people are not covered by the provisions of this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

These are official statistics I am quoting. The hon. member for Von Brandis asked me exactly the same thing last year and I see he still has not taken the trouble to refer to the Government’s statistics.

Ten per 30 000?

Sir, I said on average per farming unit. The number of farming units in South Africa has decreased from just more than 100 000 units to some 70 000 units during the past decade.

In regard to clause 2, the inclusion of South African coal and goldmining workers, it is an interesting aspect of the provisions of this Bill that they are now going to be included. I think, and this is partly in answer to what the hon. member for Pinelands said, that any contract worker who is an expatriate of South Africa, will obviously not be covered by this Bill, but all South African mineworkers, Black or White, will now be covered. I have a question for the hon. the Minister in regard to contributions and the rate of contributions to be made by the Black mineworkers in the coal and gold mines. I want to know how the hon. the Minister’s department is in fact going to calculate their contributions and benefits. A very large percentage, some 40%, of the benefits a mineworker gets in South Africa are benefits by way of quarters and food; some 60% of his benefits are in actual cash. How is the hon. the Minister’s department going to calculate the true worth and earning capacity of a mineworker in view of the very high percentage his fringe benefits represent, benefits in kind rather than cash?

Regarding the comments of the hon. member for Pretoria East—he is not here at the moment because he has certain other commitments he told me about—I should like to point out that, as concerns the rather interesting question he raised of the drain on the Fund by this category of worker, we do not anticipate that this will be very substantial at all. Benefits to be paid out to Black South African mineworkers will not be very substantial and, therefore, this will not represent a threat to the reserve funds of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The reason for this is very simple. First of all, well over 95% of the contributors will be males. Therefore maternity benefits will hardly be applicable. Secondly, there is a tremendous shortage of workers in the mining industry, particularly underground. The demand for Black South African mineworkers underground is fairly substantial, whilst there is an under-supply. The position is therefore hardly likely to arise that mineworkers will be queueing for jobs. Thirdly, regarding compensation paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund for sickness and accidents, mineworkers in South Africa are particularly well covered as regards miners’ pneumoconiosis. In addition, the provisions contained in the Act dealing with workmen’s compensation and accident insurance are very beneficial as well. Therefore, in answer to the question of the hon. member for Pretoria East whether there is going to be a drain on the reserves of the Fund, I can say that we certainly do not anticipate it.

Lastly, we welcome the provisions contained in clause 3 which serves to amend section 36 of the principal Act. Members of the workers corps who have built up a credit in terms of unemployment insurance and then changed their occupation so that they are no longer covered, can in fact benefit from previous credit they have build up. The interesting fact, of course, is the numbers involved here. If an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act benefits a single worker, we are delighted. I should however like to ask the hon. the Minister what sort of number of workers he anticipates will in fact benefit by these amendments. We welcome the amendments, but we have some difficulty in trying to calculate for ourselves precisely what number of workers would benefit by clause three amendments.

As I said at the outset, this party welcomes the improvements to the Unemployment Insurance Act. We believe it will be of value to the workers of South Africa, also in terms of the change in the Government’s attitude to the workers corps. We certainly welcome this amending legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful that the NRP also supports this legislation, through the hon. member for Durban North. The Bill demonstrates that the hon. the Minister has the interests of the workers at heart. Since the legislation meets with the approval of the employers’ organizations and the trade unions, who asked for these amendments, we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister agreed to effect the necessary amendments. Consequently we gladly support this Bill. We also welcome the amendment pertaining to the contributions and fringe benefits of the coal miners. The fringe benefits which are allied to the maternity benefits are welcomed, and will also be well received by the work force.

This legislation contributes to better labour relations, something for which we are very grateful. During the past few years we have experienced no labour unrest in the country. These amendments will help to ensure that this continues. The hon. member for Durban North put a question in respect of farm workers, particularly those in the chicken industry. I think the hon. the Minister will furnish him with the necessary reply in that regard.

We also agree with the hon. member for Pretoria East that the unemployment insurance reserve fund should be carefully watched. At present things are going well with the placing in employment of our workers, and at present there is little unemployment. That is why it is perhaps a good thing to build up reserves during this period of prosperity. A period of unemployment could recur, and then it would be a good thing if there were a sound and reliable working reserve in this fund.

With these few words we on this side of the House would like to give this legislation our full support.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful that hon. members support the legislation at present before this House, for it is of course legislation favourable to people in that it makes rectifications which have been expected for a long time. Consequently I wish to thank hon. members for their support. I just wish to say one thing to the hon. member for Durban North in connection with the matter which he raised here today, and not for the first time either, because he has raised it before. The hon. member referred to those workers who find themselves in a semi-agricultural situation. He referred to the major farming enterprises which have in fact become factories, and enquired about the possibility of looking into the question of agriculture again. Naturally I do not want to touch a matter like this without consulting the agricultural unions about it. I can understand very well that one could find oneself in a situation, particularly with chicken farming, which is not really a farming matter any more, but I do not think this is the appropriate occasion to argue about it today. I think one could discuss this subject more meaningfully, if the hon. member so prefers, when my Vote is being discussed, for there are other issues involved.

The hon. member for Pinelands, as well as the hon. member for Durban North, referred to the question of section 2(2)(b) of the Act which deals with miners. As hon. members know miners in the coal and gold mines used to be excluded. Actually it is in co-operation with the Chamber of Mines that we are introducing this legislation, for I think it is in accordance with any person’s sense of justice that part of the mining industry should not be excluded while another is included. Each section should be accorded equal treatment. But apart from that we are moving increasingly towards an appreciation of the full value of a worker, and consequently one feels that there should be as little differentiation as possible between workers in the mining industry and other workers. In the nature of things the mining industry differs somewhat from other industries. The Black workers of all the other mines besides the coal and gold mines, for example the platinum and copper mines, are already being covered by the Act. Only the coal and gold mines were excluded.

The hon. member for Durban North asked for certain statistics in this connection. It so happens that I have them available, and I should like to give them to him. I think they ought to cover the entire picture properly. According to available statistics 305 000 Blacks are employed by the gold mines—this is only the gold mines, not the coal mines. Of this number more than 200 000 of foreign workers, workers from foreign countries, in other words something like two-thirds. These Blacks are not required to contribute to the Fund in terms of the Act, since section 2(2)(a) excludes persons entering the Republic, inter alia, to carry out a contract of service within the Republic from the scope of the Act if, upon termination of the contract, those persons have to be repatriated and leave the Republic. Consequently they would not be required to contribute if section 2(2)(b), with which this amendment deals, were to be deleted. For coal mines the figures are 65 000 Blacks and 27 000 foreign workers respectively. Consequently it is also in the region of 100 000, in other words there are in the region of 400 000 workers involved in this. So there will be a total of 141 000 Blacks on the gold and coal mines who are liable to pay contributions to the Fund if this amendment were to be passed. That is the reply to the question asked by the hon. member. By the end of the 1980 financial year the Fund amounted to just over R218 million. An amount of R82 750 000 was paid out in benefits so that the income of the Fund from contributions was as follows: Employers’ contributions, R29 619 294; employees, R48 837 793 and a contribution of R7 million from the State, which the hon. member knows about. That brings the total up to R85 457 087. Just over R15,4 million was received from interest on investments.

The administrative expenses of the Fund, therefore, did not amount to more than R5 million. So much for the relevant figures. The principals I think we have now thrashed out with one another, and I believe that everyone will be delighted at and thankful for the steps which have been taken. Hon. members did not refer all that specifically to the other part of the proposal I am making, i.e. that people who are “otherwise” in employment shall also be involved now in exactly the same way as people who are considered to be contributors.

I thank hon. members for their support for the Bill. In the nature of things I cannot of course imagine that there could be a single hon. member in this House, regardless of party denomination, who would not support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

On 29 April 1958, a convention known as the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, was finalized in Geneva. South Africa became a signatory to the convention on 9 April 1963.

The convention provides, among other things, for the way in which coastal states are to determine their territorial waters. It also contains a section dealing with the innocent passage of all ships through the territorial waters. Provisions relating to the waters on the landward side of the territorial waters, also called internal waters, also occur in the convention, but mainly in connection with innocent passage to harbours.

The Territorial Waters Act, No. 87 of 1963, gave effect to the determination of the boundaries of the territorial sea. No legislative provision has hitherto been made for the innocent passage of marine traffic through the territorial waters of the Republic, and this is the purpose of this Bill. Several factors have given rise to this.

†A phenomenon that has become more and more frequent during the last few years is that of ships stopping and anchoring in our territorial waters without entering a port. This may be to effect repairs on account of mechanical problems experienced by the ship. On the other hand many ships are merely lying idle since they are waiting for cargo. In this way they avoid the payment of port dues, and in many instances become a danger to navigation since some of these ships do not bother to inform or get permission from any authority to lay up at all or to anchor at a certain spot.

At present we cannot force them to request such permission and must be satisfied with their voluntary co-operation. This is a state of affairs that cannot be allowed to continue. Apart from the danger to navigation that such a ship may pose, the possibility of inclement weather causing it to run aground is a very real one. This in turn may lead to pollution of the sea or the beaches by oil.

Hon. members will note from the definition of “passage” that stoping and anchoring are not altogether prohibited but it must be incidental to ordinary navigation or rendered necessary by vis major, or distress. Otherwise the permission of the Minister of Transport Affairs will have to be obtained in terms of clause 5.

Wrecks of ships are not only unsightly but submerged they may create hazards to navigation and problems of their own. Therefore the intentional sinking of a ship is prohibited by clause 6.

*I do not have to elaborate on the need for the Republic to be able to take action in its own waters to ensure its security. At the moment it is difficult to act against vessels stopping or lying idle within our territorial waters for no apparent purpose. We can do almost nothing to a ship which is equipped with electronic observation equipment in order to convey information to hostile parties. Clauses 8 and 9 give attention to this aspect in that the passage of a ship is under certain circumstances deemed to be not innocent because it may, inter alia, constitute a threat against the sovereignty of the State.

A well-known lawyer in the field of maritime law, Colombos, writes as follows in his work The International Law of the Sea—

1. (i) the security of the State demands that it should have exclusive possession of its shores and that it should be able to protect its approaches;
2. (ii) for the purpose of furthering its commercial, fiscal and political interests, a State must be able to supervise all ships entering, leaving or anchoring in its territorial waters;
3. (iii) the exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the products of the sea within the State’s territorial waters is necessary for the existence and welfare of the people on its coasts.

Another aspect we have to consider is the nature and volume of marine traffic around our coast. The traffic is constantly increasing. Small vessels are proliferating. Collisions between ships are not excluded; in fact, think of the two tankers, one of them empty and the other containing a cargo of oil, which collided on the Cape South Coast at the end of 1977. The Government must therefore be enabled to monitor and control the traffic if necessary, for example by prescribing sea lanes. This is being authorized by clause 14.

Mr. Speaker, if this Bill is accepted, the Republic will be much better able in peacetime to act against ships which constitute a threat against us, also in the sense of having arms on board which are intended for our enemies. I regard it as essential that such legislation be now introduced, and I can assure you that those who were consulted about this beforehand, such as the Navy, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Information, the Maritime Law Association and the Association of Master Mariners, also support it.

I just want to mention that I intend to move amendments to clauses 9(3) and (4) and 13 at the Committee Stage, as requested by the Bar Council, to make the Minister’s powers subject to a court order and to limit the exclusion of liability. I therefore trust that the Opposition will be prepared to support me at all the stages of this fine Bill so that it may be passed without delay.

Mr. Speaker, before discussing the Bill, perhaps I could take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment as Minister of Transport Affairs. The hon. the Minister and I have on numerous occasions crossed swords in agricultural debates and after the tough time he has had in that portfolio, he perhaps feels himself safe now from housewives. It may be that the hon. the Minister deserves a period in the more tranquil waters of transport affairs. [Interjections.] May I also wish him luck with his beef farming.

Listening to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech, one wonders how our maritime affairs have been conducted without this legislation in the past. I must admit that it was with some surprise that I first saw the Bill, because I was under the impression that there was some piece of legislation—I was unaware of what piece of legislation—that already ordered these affairs. We have had, however, no legislation on the Statute Book to regulate marine traffic in the territorial waters of the Republic and there is no doubt at all that this legislation is necessary.

I listened with interest to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister. I want to say to him that we are in principle in agreement with the Bill. It contains many aspects with which we are pleased.

I note that the case of foreign warships is not specifically mentioned in the Bill. Clause 8(1)(b) has a reference to “cargo or any appliance or apparatus” and it can of course cover a warship. There is also a reference to “innocent passage” under which passage for commercial purposes is understood.

It does, however, exclude pleasure craft of any kind and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not perhaps have a look at that. We have many pleasure craft passing through our waters and I would imagine that we have no objection to their doing so. I would not describe their operations as “commercial operations”.

I am pleased to see in clause 8 as well that the Minister will be empowered to take action against any ship that is suspected of participating in narcotic traffic. This pernicious traffic must be stamped out, and I am very glad indeed that the Minister has been given these powers.

The hon. the Minister mentioned in his introductory speech the situation with regard to ships that anchor in our roadsteads. All of us have seen ships anchored in False Bay for example. Most days one will see outside Table Bay harbour numerous fishing boats, many of whom are there for their health in that they have minor repairs to carry out and because they do not wish to pay port charges of one sort or another. I believe the hon. the Minister should in most instances make it fairly easy for boats to anchor.

A traffic, sometimes by helicopter, is carried on with the shore and this, of course, is of benefit to various of our ship chandlers and tradesmen in Cape Town. Such moored ships must of course be of no danger to other traffic and perhaps the hon. the Minister might decide that a certain area should be designated in which these ships should anchor. I believe that he should make it reasonably easy for them to do so.

Generally speaking I do not know that there has been any great harm occasioned by ships that have anchored for limited periods in False Bay while running repairs have been carried out, but I do agree that the shore authorities should be au fait with what is going on and should know exactly why such ships are there. Again I should like to say that if their presence does not constitute a danger to other shipping or such ships do not carry on nefarious activity with regard to electronic machinery that might be used in spying, the Minister should not make it too difficult for ships to carry on as they have for centuries.

All in all we agree with the provisions of the Bill. We are glad to see it coming on to the Statute Book, and it does not happen very often that we can say that we like to see new laws. In this instance, however, we congratulate the hon. the Minister on his first Bill in this portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Orange Grove adopts the positive attitude he has adopted in his speech this afternoon, I quite like him. However, when he enters the political sphere, I do not feel much sympathy for him.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister right at the outset that when it comes to this department, I must honestly say that I appreciate the attitude of the hon. members of the official Opposition, as well as of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, who is the NRP’s chief spokesman in this field, because they never try to make politics out of this department. They try to talk some sense about this at least.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Orange Grove and to take this opportunity of extending a very sincere welcome to the Minister on behalf of the members of the NP’s transport group. We have known him for many years, during which he has had to handle a difficult portfolio, namely agriculture. I believe that if, as Minister of Agriculture, he kept the farmers of South Africa so happy over such a long period, he must definitely have been a good Minister of Agriculture. I want to wish him everything of the best. This is also a big and important portfolio he is handling today, namely the portfolio of transport and all its facets. These are the arteries of any modern State, and I do not doubt for a moment that he will be most successful at this task as well. I wish him everything of the best in the Department of Transport Affairs.

The hon. member for Orange Grove was quite right in saying that he was surprised that this legislation had not been placed on the Statute Book before. From the nature of the case, this is not a controversial Bill. I want to thank hon. members of the official Opposition, especially the hon. member for Orange Grove, for their support. I also want to highlight a few aspects briefly. I do not have any great knowledge of navigation, for I come from Welkom, and we have no sea there, only pans. The boats we have there are yachts, but the expert in this field is the Commander on my left, the hon. member for Simonstown, and he will presently discuss this legislation at greater length.

Firstly, as the hon. the Minister indicated, the legislation is intended to empower the Republic to take action within its own territorial waters to ensure its security. This is the important principle which is being introduced in the legislation. South Africa joined the International Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contigious Zone in 1963. This convention briefly deals with the demarcation of territorial waters and the right of innocent passage. The latter aspect is the one the legislation is concerned with, and it covers only the territorial waters and the internal waters.

In spite of this convention—and this is a matter of record, because the department has had experience of this in the past— vessels have freely entered the territorial waters, cruised around there and in fact done whatever they liked. There was actually no legislation which made it possible to act against ships that were deliberately acting in an illegal manner and doing whatever they liked. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that the Republic should be able to exercise control over vessels which do not comply with the conditions for innocent passage. Those are the vessels which constitute a threat to the security and interests of the Republic as well as those of shipping within its territorial waters. Those are also the vessels which cruise around or stop within its territorial waters for reasons other than normal navigational purposes. In addition—and this is very important to the security of the State—the State Security Council has recommended that active steps be taken against foreign ships which have arms on board which are intended for terrorists or their organizations, if the ships are found within our waters. It has also been proposed that specific legal authority be provided in terms of which the entry of such ships in general is prohibited, with sanctions of arrest and confiscation if the prohibition is violated.

I should just like to quote one or two examples in this connection to show why it is so essential that this legislation be placed on the Statute Book. Political and military conditions may make it essential in some field temporarily to bar shipping from territorial waters or internal waters in certain areas, in order to ensure the security of the Republic. In other words, certain powers have to be conferred upon the hon. the Minister, even if they are of a drastic nature. If it is found, for example, that some of these ships in our territorial waters are doing things which constitute a threat to the security of the State, the hon. the Minister must have the right to act. Because this aspect is of course of a drastic nature, he can only do so in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Defence.

Let me mention another example. It is quite conceivable, in the modern times in which we live, that we may find ships—and submarines as well—which are conveying terrorists, agitators, war materials or even drugs. If those people or materials are intended to be used against the Republic inside the Republic, or from adjoining territories, in order to hinder or endanger the sovereignty and security of the State, the hon. the Minister must have the power to act against the ships concerned.

In terms of the provision in the Bill, action can be taken against such a ship. There are certain regulations which provide to what extent it can in fact be done. There are certain penalties which can be imposed, such as a fine of R10 000 or two years’ imprisonment, or both, if it is found that such things are in fact happening.

Finally, we thank the hon. the Minister for introducing this legislation. I believe it is essential legislation. I also believe it will do much to regulate shipping traffic around our coasts, and I am convinced that it will be possible to eliminate many of the abuses that are taking place today, because the hon. the Minister and his department are often powerless and unable to take the necessary steps. Therefore it is a privilege for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to the hon. member for Welkom I too should like, on behalf of my party’s transport group, to welcome the hon. the Minister to his new portfolio. As the hon. member for Orange Grove said, possibly he is now sailing in calmer waters, but I cannot quite guarantee that, because especially when the Railway budget comes up in due course, I am sure the hon. the Minister is going to be faced with attacks on inflation and other related matters. [Interjections.] I do not think he is going to be able to blame inflation on the rising cost of transport as he did when he was Minister of Agriculture, because he is now going to be the Minister responsible for increased rail tariffs. Be that as it may, I congratulate the hon. the Minister and sincerely hope he is going to enjoy his new portfolio.

We in these benches have also been most surprised at the fact that this Bill has taken so long to come before Parliament. I was also rather surprised to see that there was such a gap in our laws, a gap that would allow alien vessels to come so close to our shores, anchor off-shore, etc., and that the hon. the Minister concerned did not have any powers to do anything about it. For a party that prides itself so often on having the security of the State at heart, I think they have really been remiss in allowing such a state of affairs to go on for so long. We in these benches, however, are very pleased that the hon. Minister has come to light with this legislation. Perhaps this is a sign of a new broom sweeping clean. Perhaps we are now going to find many shortcomings caught up and swept away. I certainly hope—in fact I am sure it is going to be, judging by this sort of legislation—it is going to be in the best interests of South Africa.

I think we are all aware of the volume of marine traffic passing our shores each day. In fact, if one looks at a map of the world showing the flow of ocean-going traffic travelling along various routes, one will clearly see that South Africa is situated on one of the major ocean routes of the world. When one remembers the statement the hon. the Minister made about the dangers which present themselves when ships lie off-shore for days and sometimes weeks on end waiting for cargo, especially during periods of world recession, one can imagine the dangers which this practice presents to the normal traffic along our coast line. I think this is particularly the case along our coastline, parts of which are the most dangerous in the world because of the currents, the weather and so on. Therefore we welcome the provisions of this Bill in that regard.

We also welcome clause 8 which concerns vessels which are deemed to be “not innocent”. I am pleased the hon. the Minister has given such prominence to narcotics because we all know the effect of the drug traffic upon certain parts of certain countries in the world. It has become a major problem in certain places in Central America and the Caribbean and I think we are very wise to include narcotic traffic here along with the other items mentioned in clause 8(1)(b), viz.—

These vessels should be deemed to be not innocent. To me, it is correct that narcotics are grouped with persons or equipment which could be deemed to be a threat to the state. I think that is the way they should be grouped, along with the enemies of South Africa.

We agree that the provisions of this Bill are necessary and, as I said, we shall be supporting them. But although we feel this Bill need not be committed, there is one query I have as far as definitions are concerned and that concerns the definition of “internal waters”. It is clearly stated that these should include certain bays and harbours, viz. Walvis Bay, Saldanha Bay, Hout Bay, False Bay, the Knysna Lagoon, the Bay of Natal and Richards Bay. I wondered why such bays as St. Helena Bay, Table Bay, Mossel Bay and Algoa Bay have been excluded from this particular definition. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will give us the reason for this is in his reply.

Finally, Sir, clause 14(a) refers to nuclear cargo. Clause 14 reads—

1. (a) regulating marine traffic . . . carrying nuclear or other dangerous or noxious substances . . .

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this also includes nuclear propelled ships. With those few words, we in these benches wish to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment and to wish him every success. Secondly, I want to congratulate the leader of the Transport group on this side of the House on his first speech as chairman and to wish him success as well.

†I should also like to thank the speaker on behalf of the NRP for his support of this measure. With regard to the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, I should like to point out to him that in terms of clause 14(c) the Minister has the power to exempt certain vessels from the provisions of that particular clause. Obviously vessels that will be excluded will be fishing vessels and vessels of a sporting type or pleasure craft. Then he mentioned the necessity for making it easy for vessels to get permission to anchor in sheltered anchorages like some of the bays mentioned in the Bill. He said he felt this should not be unreasonably withheld. I think he has a point there. We do have a small, but flourishing, off-shore victualling and repair industry in the Republic which supplements the work done in the harbours. I think one should pay tribute to that industry. I think one must, however, also consider the effect of an extension of those services to the detriment, perhaps, of our ship repair industries in the harbours. I think a balance must be struck between the two.

Marine law is one of the most interesting aspects of international law. The right of innocent passage, which is dealt with in this Bill, is a cardinal principle in international law and it applies to merchantmen but not to warships, unless of course they show their flag and are on the surface. I think it is a principle that is recognized by every maritime country in the world. This Bill places limitations on the right of innocent passage; it certainly does not prevent it. The passage is not innocent if it is detrimental to the peace, the good order and the safety of the maritime State concerned. The right applies not only to territorial seas, but also to inland waters. It had its origin in the doctrine of the freedom of the seas, of which the greatest exponent was the Dutch authority Grotius. What is lawful does not include smuggling, i.e. drug smuggling or weapon smuggling, because both of these contravene the laws of the maritime State.

Reference has been made to the Geneva Convention as a result of which we had legislation before this Parliament in 1963, extending our territorial waters to 12 miles off-shore. The Geneva Convention also dealt with the subject of the right of innocent passage which is today being dealt with in this Bill. It is imperative that the Republic should have the right to deal with all vessels that do not strictly adhere to the international convention of the right of innocent passage. Power is being given to the Minister to act purposefully against vessels carrying weapons destined for terrorist organizations should such vessels traverse South Africa’s territorial waters or even visit our harbours.

In clause 1 there is reference to “internal waters”. I should like to say a word about these internal waters. These waters are landward of a line—the baseline, as it were—from which the territorial waters are determined. Not all the bays around our coast were included in the definition of “internal waters” heretofore. However, as a result of the legislation before us today most of the important bays are being brought within the ambit of the law. Some of them have, so far, been too large to fall within the generally accepted definition of “internal waters”. In international law it is considered that where the distance across the points of a bay is less than 24 sea miles—various authorities call that the terrae fauces—such as is for example the case with False Bay, the bay is part of the territorial waters but is not regarded as internal waters.

I want to deal briefly with two bays that are of particular interest to us, namely False Bay and Walvis Bay. This Bill brings under the heading “internal waters” both of these bays as well as other bays that are mentioned. The reason why Table Bay in Cape Town has not been brought within the ambit of the law is simply because the distance across Table Bay is far in excess of the distances applicable to Walvis Bay and False Bay. Ships have in the past often departed from the most direct route when sailing through territorial waters, and that is the presumption lying behind the whole concept of “innocent passage”; a ship should not abuse the right to traverse territorial waters by zig-zagging or by taking irregular courses but it should take the most direct course through territorial waters. Some of these vessels enter territorial waters, take up anchorage in those waters and very often anchor very close to the shores. Such action can be contrary to the interests of the State, but in terms of this Bill, “passage” is now defined as unbroken and direct passage on both an accustomed and a usual sea route. I think that is a good definition and the department should be congratulated on it. Not only that, but it should be a direct route with the purpose of sailing through territorial waters or internal waters, not on the way to a harbour or to an anchorage, but in the case of traversing “internal waters” it must be en route to a harbour or anchorage or to what is called a “sea installation”. These “sea installations” are, for example, oil pipelines where ships are serviced or when vessels take in bunkers off Durban or off Mossel Bay. It also applies to installations taking oil from the sea-bed and in this connection the definition “sea installation” would cover an oil rig such as Sedco. It also covers situations where lighters provide oil bunkers for ships at sea off Cape Town. It also covers diving tanks and investigation capsules used for the taking of oil and gas from the sea as, for example, off Mossel Bay.

In clause 2 provision is made for all vessels, both South African and foreign, which are not warships, to enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters. Internal waters are specifically excluded, except in the case of emergencies, because access to internal waters is governed by regulation of the coastal State.

In clause 4 we deal with harbours. Here we have the position that all South African harbours may be entered and left at the discretion of the captain of the vessel concerned. When a ship is in harbour that ship and its captain are entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the harbour captain. All other internal waters may only be entered by permission and subject to regulation in terms of this Bill. Failure to observe the regulation and requirements will result in a fine of R10 000.

I now wish to say something about Walvis Bay. For many, many years we have had the situation where large vessels anchor off the port of Walvis Bay. They evade dock dues by coming into Walvis Bay to anchor. They lie off-shore and are very often serviced as to the provision of crew by aircraft from their countries of origin. These aircraft land at Windhoek and the crew are then transported to Walvis Bay. They are then taken out either by lighter or by helicopter.

As a result there is very little traffic between the anchored ship and the town of Walvis Bay. There is no benefit therefore to the people of Walvis Bay even if queues of ships are lying off their port. They avoid dock dues, they make no contribution towards the economy of Walvis Bay and in fact they use the near waters of Walvis Bay purely for their own convenience. In terms of this Bill the masters of such ships can be prevented from making use of the sea there without accepting the responsibilities that should attach to it. They will be liable to a penalty, for example, of up to R10 000 or imprisonment for a period of two years if they are convicted of doing this in future without the authority of the Minister.

Clause 6 is an interesting clause. It deals with unserviceable vessels, wrecks and ships which have, for one reason or another, been dismantled. These types of vessels are often sunk at the owner’s behest or at the discretion of the owner, irrespective of the consequences to shipping in our coastal areas. This also has various other consequences that can be mentioned. One of the merits of sinking these vessels is that they provide a haven for fish. That has been an incentive to some people to ask for vessels to be sunk in False Bay because they provide a shelter and a home for fish. It is not long before they are overgrown with sea growth, and it is quite spectacular to go under water to see the volume of fish life that has been restored by these sunken vessels. That is the advantage of sinking these vessels. There are certain disadvantages, however. In a bay such as False Bay where we have naval installations, one of the disadvantages of such sunken vessels is that they interfere to some extent with navigation. What is more important is that they are detrimental to the use of instruments used by the Navy to determine the presence of hostile vessels in the bay. In this respect one can, for example, think of submarines which could be mistaken for sunken vessels in the process of charting the sea-bed. There are all sorts of problems that can arise if vessels are sunk without the necessary authority being obtained. In fact, if my memory serves me correctly, there has even been court action taken recently in order to try to prevent the sinking of a vessel in False Bay. This particular ship was an old naval vessel.

In clause 6(1)(b) mention is made of abandoning ships. This, I think, is a new provision. I believe it is a good provision but I am not so sure whether it is going to work in practice because it is all very well to say to the captain of a ship that he cannot abandon his vessel. If, however, the captain is going to go down with his ship, he is, except in fiction, very likely to abandon his ship. Therefore I think the wish is father to the thought. I do agree, however, that abandoned ships do constitute a real hazard to shipping. Therefore I believe this clause is important.

Clause 8, I believe, is the most important clause of this Bill. It deals with ships and submarines suspected of transporting terrorists or agitators or of carrying weapons or narcotics for use against the Republic. In terms of the provisions of this clause such vessels can be confiscated. Such passage as is referred to in this clause is neither innocent nor peaceful.

How does one confiscate a terrorist?

As I have said, this clause is the most important clause of this Bill because it has international repercussions. In terms of this clause the Minister is empowered to require the captain of a vessel to perform certain things within a certain prescribed period. Failure to do so will result in some form of forcible intervention. The ship can, for example, be ordered to stop and to put to anchor. If this is refused more forceful action can be taken in order to enforce the given instruction. In terms of clause 9(1)(b) the captain of a ship can be required to declare the name of the ship, the official number, the flag, the type, the gross tonnage, the destination of the vessel and details of its cargo. Paragraph (e) gives the right of search to certain designated officials and paragraph (f) makes provisions for the arrest of persons—and here my hon. friend to my right will have his question answered—suspected of being terrorists or agitators or of presenting a threat to the sovereignty of the State, territorial integrity of the State and even constitutional independence of the Republic.

The Navy is also provided for in terms of subsection (2) of clause 9 in that in terms of this subsection the Navy is empowered to place on a suspect vessel an officer with powers to search the ship, to examine its documents and to search the ship generally for cargo and even to make provision for the taking of that ship in tow. There are also further provisions for the confiscation of the cargo that the ship may be carrying and also for the sale of that cargo.

Then, Sir, some of my sensitive hon. friends to my right who are always so concerned about “human rights” and who are so sensitive about “rules of law” will be pleased to know that in terms of clause 10 there is provision for consular assistance for the captain of any ship who falls into one of the categories I have already described. His rights will be protected by immediate access being given to him by the consul in the port.

Are you going to oppose that clause?

Naturally, Sir, everyone with humane instincts will welcome a clause of this nature.

And you will oppose it?

Up to the present we have had no power to regulate sea traffic in our territorial waters or internal waters by statute and, in the past, we have had to depend entirely upon international law. International law has many supporters but there are many people who only pay lip service to international conventions. It is also nevertheless more observed in practice than is thought to be the case. However, in the light of conditions pertaining here in the Republic, we cannot possibly rely on conventions of international law and that is why it is so necessary for the hon. the Minister now to take statutory authority to deal with possible abuses of internationally recognized rights such as innocent passage.

There is one further matter I should like to mention and that is power of regulation by the hon. the Minister of traffic around the coasts and the designation of routes which loaded vessels and those in ballast or ships carrying nuclear materials or other harmful materials shall follow. I think this is a very important provision indeed and I hope the hon. the Minister and his department will give very considerable and constant attention to the need to define routes of all ships passing through our territorial waters and through our internal waters.

With these few words I congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on this Bill. It is long overdue and I wish it a successful “innocent passage” through this House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like at the outset to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for welcoming me in my new portfolio. I had to fight for the farmers of South Africa for 12 years. I remember last year at about this time—the hon. member referred to my leaving the dairy business—asking the hon. member whether the farmers could not be paid an additional 2 cents per litre for their milk thus making it 40% cheaper than mineral and sugar waters. However, neither he nor the Housewives’ League was in favour of this and so they forced me out of business. [Interjections.] However, we are still good friends and I have always enjoyed crossing swords with him in a friendly fashion.

The hon. member referred to clause 8 and mentioned the case of warships and pleasure boats. These matters are regulated by regulation in terms of clause 16(b). I must say that all the other questions asked were replied to most effectively by the hon. member for Simonstown.

*I should also like to thank the hon. member for Welkom for the welcome he extended to me. One feels welcome here in the calm waters of the new Department of Transport Affairs and I wish to thank him, as he is the chairman of the Transport group, for his understanding of the problems.

†I also want to thank the hon. member for Amanzimtoti for his contribution.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the question of harbours and mentioned the figure of 24 sea miles. That is the reason why harbours such as False Bay and Saldanha Bay are included but not Table Bay and Algoa Bay because the latter two are more than 24 sea miles in extent.

I was referring to bays.

Yes, that is correct. I think the hon. member for Simonstown is a student of the sea and of sea traffic and I want to congratulate him on his contribution to this debate today.

*I tell you straight out, that man knows more about this matter than I do, but watch me in two, three years’ time! Then hon. members will sit and listen to me open-mouthed! Give a chap a chance. If I had advisers such as the hon. member for Simonstown has, I should do this job with a smile, even as far as the sea is concerned. After all, I have the right men who advise me and together we try to introduce positive legislation. I want to thank hon. members for supporting each clause and for saying that the time for this fine piece of legislation is ripe.

Mr. Chairman, there is only a very small point. I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why it is not necessary for surface ships to carry a flag. The clause makes it legally necessary for a submarine, not only to travel on the surface, but also to carry a flag. As it therefore does not appear to be necessary for an ordinary surface ship to carry a flag, I wonder whether there is any reason for that omission. I do not think it is all that important, but it should be interesting to know.

Mr. Chairman, it is not compulsory. Apart from the fact that a foreign submarine or foreign underwater vessel has, just like any surface ship, the right of innocent passage and is subject to the restrictions of the Bill, it also has to navigate on the surface and show its flag. It is not compulsory to carry a flag.

But it is compulsory for a submarine.

Why should a submarine have a flag if one cannot see it? What is the purpose of having a flag in those circum stances? [Interjections.]

*I could determine the details and make them available to the hon. member. Actually I cannot see why a submarine should have a flag.

But the clause says it must.

I have just obtained the necessary information from my officials. A surface ship has to show a flag; it is compulsory.

I think international law makes it compulsory.

But does one ever find a ship on the surface without a flag?

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

As I said in the course of my introductory speech, the Bar Council should like us to effect this amendment. According to the present wording of clauses 9(3) and 9(4) the Minister may detain a ship indefinitely and subsequently sell it in order to redeem his costs. These are far-reaching powers and it could happen that the Minister subsequently discovers that the information on the strength of which he acted, was not 100% reliable. Consequently it is provided by means of the amendment that the Minister may not detain a ship for more than seven days. This is a period which will normally afford the department as well as the owner of the ship sufficient time to dispose of their business. If the department should require more time, it may forward a request to that effect to the Supreme Court. This amendment is therefore proposed so that any action will be in accordance with our legal procedure, as the Bar Council requested.

Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I say how nice it is to have a liberal Minister at the helm, because it is not often that we see clauses that actually put more power in the hands of the courts and less in the hands of Ministers. We welcome these amendments; they are very good amendments indeed and we must congratulate the hon. the Minister on accepting the advice of the Bar Council.

You made an excellent speech!

Mr. Chairman, this clause gives the hon. the Minister the power to delegate powers to other people. I think it would be a very good idea if the hon. the Minister would tell us who is actually going to administer this Act. When it comes to stopping ships and enforcing the discipline this Bill envisages, I think he should tell us whether the Navy is going to be called in, what the relationship between the department and the Navy is going to be, if there is going to be any relationship, and how this is going to be worked out. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us something of his intentions in this matter, because this Bill is going to be useless unless there is somebody to carry out its provisions, and it would be interesting for all hon. members to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, I can delegate powers to any person in my department capable of doing this job, sometimes in co-operation with the Navy. We cannot do this work without the help of other departments. In any situation where we have to act and may need the help of the Navy, I must have the power to delegate some of my powers to officials in my department, or the Navy, provided that I can withdraw any such delegation when I deem it fit.

So it will be the Navy?

It can be the Navy and it can be officials of my department. It is to be a co-operative action. One cannot do it without the power to ask for co-operation and to delegate powers to other people. For example, if problems are encountered at sea and I do not have the ships or warships at my disposal, I must have the power to call in the Navy to help in the operation.

For the same reasons which I advanced in respect of clause 9, and also for the sake of fairness, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, we have no problem with these amendments as they are good amendments, but we do have slight problems with the clause itself. On many occasions when Bills have come before the House we have raised the aspect of the blanket indemnity that is granted to servants of the State who are operating in good faith. It seems to us that it possibly can condone negligence. We do not believe that the State should be covered if it can be proved that servants of the State have acted in a negligent manner. The opinion of the Government law advisers in the past has been contrary to our advice as we have had the assurance that if negligent acts were committed by State servants, a clause such as this would not apply, and anybody responsible for that negligence could be sued by the injured party. I would like to get the hon. the Minister’s assurance that this is still so and that this is how he sees this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I have stated that it was at the request of the Bar Council that these amendments are being effected.

Not the Act.

This amendment, too, is being inserted for the sake of fairness—it gives an exact reply to what the hon. member requested—so that an otherwise reasonable claim may not be rejected for technical reasons if there was any negligence.

So if anybody has suffered any proven losses, he may institute a claim against the State or the Minister. This is exactly what the hon. member for Orange Grove has in mind and why we are effecting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this clause but I should just like to seek some information from the hon. the Minister. I should like to refer to sub-section (a) of clause 14 first. It empowers the hon. the Minister to make regulations—

I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister is going to make sure that an end is made to certain bad practices one sees off the coast of Natal from time to time. I am speaking, in particular, of the area off the town of Umkomaas where, in the past—the hon. the Minister may be aware of this—certain ships have struck the Aliwal shoal because of the bad habit their captains have of trying to catch the currents to assist them in travelling up the coast. At times some of the local residents see ships coming almost right into the breakers. This sounds like an exaggeration . . .

It is quite true.

… but at times one feels that those ships are going to run ashore at any moment. We have in the past, as I have said, had cases of ships running aground. So I certainly hope that now that the hon. the Minister has this power, that particular stretch of our coastline is going to be looked at very closely. Clause 14(a) goes on to say—

Looking at the provision, I assume that this includes nuclear-powered vessels. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister is going to ensure that when he makes his regulations, South Africa ends up with a very clear set of regulations that can be applied should a case arise in our waters such as happened off the coast of Japan recently when, I believe, a Russian nuclear submarine had an explosion on board and had to try to make its way back, if I remember correctly, to the port of Vladivostok. There was, at that time, a lot of comment in the Press about whether or not the ship would be allowed to travel through Japanese territorial waters.

It is in the nuclear energy legislation.

The hon. member for Constantia says it is in the nuclear energy legislation. However, now that the hon. the Minister is to have the power, my appeal to him is that we should be well prepared if, heaven forbid, an event such as this should ever occur in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is perfectly right. We want to have the power to be able to indicate to ships what routes they should take.

You should have traffic lights.

As far as is practicable, we want to have orderly shipping. Let me, however, quote from clause 14(a)—

I give the hon. member the assurance that in the regulations we shall be covering the whole field. The whole idea of this legislation is to protect our own people and our seas from pollution, e.g. oil pollution. Even empty ships should be regulated and told which routes to follow. So let me say that I agree with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, clause 15 makes it possible for the hon. the Minister to make and notify regulations without having to publish them in the Government Gazette. Can I ask the hon. the Minister what the purpose of this clause is and how he intends to notify ship-owners of these regulations?

Mr. Chairman, it is necessary to make a careful study of certain matters and of how certain measures will be implemented. The idea is to inform people by publishing the reason for applying a certain measure. That is our intention.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the Merchant Shipping Act, No. 57 of 1951, came into effect on 1 January 1960, approval has been obtained for various amendments. It has now become necessary to move further amendments, amendments which can no longer be postponed.

The amendments are not of a contentious nature; accordingly there ought to be no objections to them. I should also like to add here that in reply to the call by the hon. the Prime Minister that legislation should be revised and obsolete laws deleted, the whole Merchant Shipping Act, one of the most comprehensive Acts on the Statute Book, is to be revised. A working committee under the chairmanship of Adv. Douglas Shaw has already been constituted to undertake the task.

However, these amendments which I am now moving cannot wait until the committee mentioned has finalized its activities.

†The amendments to Act 57 of 1951 have become necessary as a result of the following—

1. (a) Rationalization in the Public Service. This resulted in certain definitions having to be changed.
2. (b) The accession of the Republic of South Africa to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974 (Solas 1974). Consequential amendments have become essential.
3. (c) Representations received from certain organizations for the amendment of certain sections of the Act.
4. (d) Recommendations emanating from the Commission of Inquiry into the Control of Small Craft.
5. (e) To improve the administrative procedures in the application of the Act.

The proposed amendment to section 68 of the principal Act is intended to implement a recommendation by the Commission of Inquiry into the Control of Small Craft, generally known as the Reinecke Commission, namely that all small vessels—i.e. vessels of less than 25 gross tons and more than three metres in length—be controlled. All small vessels, irrespective of their use, whether propelled by motor, oar or sail, must therefore be licensed and issued with safety certificates. Small vessels used solely for sport or recreation may be exempted by the Minister from being licensed.

*Clause 3 prohibits vessels of less than 3 metres in length from going to sea. However, the Minister may by regulation prescribe the purpose for and the area in which such vessels may be used.

The purpose of the aforegoing two amendments is the promotion of safety.

The compensation which a seaman is entitled to for the loss of property is prescribed in the Regulations concerning the Payment of Compensation for Loss as a result of Risks at Sea, 1961. Representations were received from the Association of South African Shipowners to the effect that the circumstances under which compensation may at present be paid, viz. shipwreck and loss or abandonment of a ship, also be extended to flooding, stranding, fire on board or collision of a ship. I consider this a reasonable request which rectifies a deficiency in the Act, and consequently clause 5 is being incorporated in the Bill.

†The proposed amendment to section 263 is intended to extend the limitation of liability for loss or damage of certain kinds which is confined to owners of ships, to charterers, managers and operators of ships as well. Representations for the amendment were received from the Maritime Law Association of South Africa who has world-wide interests in the matter.

*During the 1978 session of Parliament the hon. member for Groote Schuur requested the former Minister of Transport, Mr. S. L. Muller, to consider the possibility of allowing a Supreme Court judge to act as chairman of a court of maritime inquiry. Ex-Minister Muller undertook to consider the matter. This undertaking is now being carried out and at the same time provision is being made for further categories of persons to act as chairman.

Clause 10 provides that South African citizens who commit offences on board any foreign ship on the high seas, may be tried by a South African court. This is not the case at present and this is a deficiency in the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to tell the hon. the Minister that we shall be supporting this legislation in principle, although we are worried about one or two aspects of it. There are very many good aspects to the Bill. There are technical amendments which, of course, we have no quarrel with. Particularly, we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to improve the position of seamen as far as their salaries are concerned where they have been on board a ship which has been flooded or stranded, has had a fire on board or has been in a collision. This is a first-class provision and we are very pleased about it.

We have some reservations about clause 2. The hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech that, following the report of the Reinecke Commission of Inquiry into the Control of Small Craft, all craft should be controlled. I think we would agree with this in principle, but it is the method of control which, I think, comes under scrutiny here. The hon. the Minister may know that in chapter 6 of the Reinecke Commission’s report a recommendation was made that there should be a national controlling body to look after the interests of small craft. I should like to quote a section of this report, because I think it is very pertinent to the debate we are having on this matter.

Having established that there was a need for control and that such control should be vested in a single authority, the commission had to decide what that authority should be and how it should be created. It decided to recommend that there should be an independent national controlling body for small craft. I shall quote the reasons for that later. There was a dissenting vote by Commissioner Haak, “who thought that safety control over all small boating off the coast of the Republic could be brought about effectively by amending the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951”, which is exactly what the hon. the Minister is doing. Therefore, in spite of the majority report of this commission, the hon. the Minister has decided to follow Commissioner Haak’s recommendation. He did not mention this in his introductory speech. I quote further (para. 6.2.2)—

The commission found the concept of divided responsibility totally unacceptable and they were not prepared to recommend “burdening an already overburdened Department of Transport with responsibility for pleasure craft”.

The control of all pleasure craft is an enormous task. My question to the hon. the Minister is whether the Department of Transport can cope with this and whether they are the right body to exercise this control. I have a tremendous regard for the department. I think it is a first-class and very efficient department. However, in the face of a recommendation—and I concede that it was not a unanimous recommendation—that one should not do this, but have a separate controlling authority, why did the hon. the Minister decide to use an amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act to put this in the hands of the Department of Transport? I believe the hon. the Minister owes us an explanation. He must give the reasons why the Government has not followed this recommendation. There are other recommendations that they have followed, particularly the recommendation that is embodied in clause 3 which states—

This is a very good idea. I think we must realize that if clause 2 is going to operate it must bring within the ambit of the Act things like ski boats or any craft that go to sea from anywhere. It must be so that nobody may launch a boat from a beach to go out fishing or to do anything of this nature unless the hon. the Minister decides to exempt that particular class of eoat. I think it would be of great interest to pleasure boatsmen, fishermen, pleasure fishermen, big-game fishermen and other people to know what the hon. the Minister’s intentions are with respect to this. Are they going to be controlled? Is it going to be necessary for them to be licensed? Is the hon. the Minister going to introduce very much stricter control through the Department of Transport Affairs, or is he perhaps going to delegate it to the Department of Sport, under whom it should possibly fall? Is there a possibility, having seen how the workings of this Act in practice, that he might finally decide that perhaps a separate controlling body is the answer? It is obviously going to occasion a necessity for a much greater staff in the Department of Transport Affairs if this control is going to be adequate. There is not a bit of use in having legislation unless the control is adequate. It is also perhaps possible, and here I am perhaps putting words into the hon. the Minister’s mouth, that he is going to exempt the majority of pleasure craft and fishing craft, so that the task will not be so onerous at this time. However, I do believe it is vitally necessary that all the sport fishermen and the people who operate pleasure craft throughout South Africa should know the hon. the Minister’s intentions at this stage. But, as I say, we agree in principle with the Bill before us. We have no quarrel with the rest of it and therefore we have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, consists, to a large extent, merely of definitions. Consequently it is not contentious legislation. It is, as the hon. the Minister said, not of a contentious nature. Yet, as the hon. member for Orange Grove pointed out, there are important amendments which are a direct result of the proposal contained in the Reinecke report. The purpose of the proposed amendments in respect of small craft in particular, is to control all small craft, viz. vessels of less than 25 gross tons and more than three metres in length, by once again making it compulsory for them to be in possession of licences in terms of the Merchant Shipping Act, Act No. 57 of 1951, when they go to sea. At present, only vessels used or owned for fishing, or to convey persons or goods for financial gain or reward, have to be licensed. In some European countries all vessels propelled by an engine have to be licensed, irrespective of whether they are three or 2,5 metres. I foresee that when the Merchant Shipping Act is revised under the chairmanship of Adv. Douglas Shaw, small vessels will be further defined so that some of the small vessels, for example ski-boats, to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred as well, will be totally excluded from the Merchant Shipping Act. The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs may exempt the owners of small vessels used solely for sport or recreation from the provisions to license the vessels and to have safety certificates.

In the nature of the matter I have no objection to the legislation. In fact, I support the legislation totally. However, I have placed a question mark alongside clause 2, a clause which authorizes the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs to exempt the owner of a small vessel used solely for sport or recreation from the provision to license the vessel. The mere fact that he may compel the smaller vessels to be licensed is what is important. When does a person use a ski boat? He uses it in the course of practising sport. When, for example, he goes to catch snoek, he is surely engaged in sport and recreation. However, if all smaller vessels are totally exempted from licensing, he, too, is exempted. I personally would prefer it to be compulsory for all vessels, ski boats included, to be licensed.

Likewise the amendment under discussion makes no provision for smaller vessels on inland waters, for example on the Vaal Dam or the Verwoerd Dam. I think this is a deficiency which we could perhaps rectify in future so that the legislation will be applicable not only to vessels going to sea from the coast, but also vessels on an inland lake or dam.

The rest of the provisions of this Bill are obvious. It amounts to an overall improvement to existing legislation. Something that has been necessary for a long time has now been done. I do not want to say anything more about it. Besides, the hon. the Minister has been praised so much by both Opposition parties today that only one thing remains for him, viz. that he should blow his own trumpet. I give my wholehearted support to the legislation under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP will be supporting this Bill although we do have a few reservations about clause 2 and clause 3.

I should like to refer in particular to these two clauses because they involve recommendations contained in the report of the Reinecke Commission and of the Sea Fisheries Commission which, I sincerely hope, the hon. the Minister had the opportunity of reading before he gave up the portfolio of Agriculture and Sea Fisheries.

Clause 2 clearly empowers the hon. the Minister to license small craft. The question is: Why did those two commissions recommend that small craft be licensed? The Reinecke Commission report deals at length with the important aspects of safety, and the control of these craft along our coast through the medium of licences. The Sea Fisheries Commission also stated it would like to see small craft licensed, especially ski-boats. I am pleased to hear the hon. member for Kimberley-South say he believes that all small craft should be licensed. The first reason for this, I believe, is the concern the commissions had regarding the safety of people who operate those craft. It is rather surprising to me that we should have two hon. members on the Government side—the hon. member for Welkom and the hon. member for Kimberley South—who agree with us on this point. In Natal where we have hundreds . . .

Thousands.

Thousands. The hon. member for Umhlanga is quite correct. We have thousands of ski-boats being launched from our shores. We find that many of these people come from places such as Kimberley-South and Welkom, as well as from the Transvaal and elsewhere. A lot of those people think that they are operating their craft on the Vaal Dam or on some inland lake. They fail to realize that the Natal coastline is not quite the same thing. As a result we have had very unfortunate cases of people getting into trouble, with the result that the whole of the rescue service had to be put into action to try to rescue them, often with much success, but, regrettably, sometimes also with the loss of life and/or serious damage to craft. Therefore the first reason why the commissions would like to see small craft licensed is to ensure— as with motor vehicles operating on our roads—that a craft being put to sea is seaworthy and that it carries the necessary safety equipment on board, so that if the skipper or his crew should get into trouble they do at least have safety equipment that can assist them. That is the first reason.

The second reason, is the reason advanced by the Sea Fisheries Commission, viz, that licensing would exert some control over the fishing activities of these craft, especially ski-boats, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to have his department investigate this aspect of the report of the Sea Fisheries Commission.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Simonstown and myself, and other hon. members who were members of the Sea Fisheries Commission, found from the evidence submitted, that ski-boats are over-exploiting the fish resources around our coastline. The question arises: How does one control this? Licensing is one way, but if the hon. the Minister is going to exempt pleasure craft, how is he going to define which is a pleasure craft and which is a fishing craft? He may regard a ski-boat as a pleasure craft but the fact remains that most are used for fishing. I am not opposed to their fishing. I believe that we must exploit whatever resources we have in South Africa to our best advantage but what I am opposed to is the destruction of a natural resource through over-exploitation. For this reason I believe that the hon. the Minister has to give very careful attention to this matter before he starts empowering certain people to grant exemptions. I am entirely in agreement with the hon. member for Orange Grove who said that it would not necessarily be the department that would have the final control over this situation. For my own part I would prefer to see this power delegated, preferably to the provincial authorities who would, in my opinion, be able to obtain the co-operation of the people who are directly concerned in operating ski-boats. I refer, for instance, to the ski-boat clubs.

Mr. Speaker, a ski-boat owner has two major considerations, the first being to ensure his safety, so that he can come back home, and not be lost at sea. Secondly, if he does fish, he likes to be able to actually catch fish. However, a problem arises in regard to the concept that our fish resources are common property—which is the concept that a lot of people have in regard to our marine resources. The fact is that these people feel that if they do not get their fair share of the fish now, someone else will, and therefore they tend to over-exploit the resource. However, if there was some sort of control mechanism, I am sure that we would find that our ski-boat fishermen would react in more or less the same way as those fishermen who fish our inland waters, those fishermen who have to have licences to catch trout—the same thing can be said of hunters—who act in a responsible manner. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe that he has to be very careful in this regard. He has to obtain the goodwill of and make use of the means of the people of goodwill who are directly involved in this recreation or sport of sea-fishing. He must involve them in the controlling mechanism.

I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will consider what I have just said and that he will read the recommendations of the report of the Sea Fisheries Commission. I also hope that he will go out of his way to win the co-operation of the fishermen and the ski-boat clubs and any other small boat clubs in this particular regard.

With those few words I wish to assure the hon. the Minister that we shall support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the problems of the hon. members for Amanzimtoti and Orange Grove. I want to give the House the assurance, however, as I said in my Second Reading speech, that Mr. Douglas Shaw is at present rewriting this legislation and that we are only making provision in this Bill to cover certain aspects of the legislation. Personally, I would prefer to exempt small boats in the meantime. I say this because at present we do not have the personnel to implement all the provisions of the Act.

That is why I say that you must co-operate with the clubs.

Now we must find certain ways and means to involve people who have the knowledge, and prevail upon them to co-operate with us. For this reason I call upon hon. members to afford us a chance to implement the Bill in practice.

The hon. member now says there is no difference between a ski-boat and a fishing boat. Consequently one cannot lay down a formula if one does not make a practical regulation in which all these facets are defined. However, I want to say at once that I do not intend licensing or instituting an investigation into every small vessel. I do not intend appointing a number of sea “speed-cops”, for we simply do not have the staff. We must implement the Bill in practice, and that is why I believe that we should do so by way of regulation once we have consulted all interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that ski-boat clubs themselves have their own form of regulations? In order to become a member of a ski-boat club one has to comply with safety regulations. They also have a method of monitoring the catch of ski-boats. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware of this.

I fully realize that skiboat clubs have their own regulations because they want discipline amongst their members. The hon. member referred to the Reinecke Commission, but we have had various commissions in this regard, for instance the commission on which the hon. member himself served and of which Mr. Nick Treurnicht was the chairman. I read this commission’s report, and even there one finds certain recommendations that should be implemented.

*As I said, we are going to regulate this matter by way of regulation and we shall come back to obtain permission to implement certain regulations at Government level. But, I want to give hon. members the assurance that we have no intention of disrupting anything. Many of the small fishing boat owners asked whether there could not be regulations to exercise control. One has for example, the case of the person who comes with his boat from the Vaal Dam to the Cape. He is used to sailing on the Vaal Dam, but now sails out here into the open sea while the south-easter is raging and in the end his life has to be saved. There is no regulation to control such a person if he sails into the open sea.

It is a pleasure for me to thank the hon. member for Kimberley South, for he too put the matter positively. He said one should not praise a person too much. That brings to mind this anecdote: A man wanted to sell two horses, one of which was thin and squint. He then harnessed the two horses and pointed out the excellence of the squint horse to the prospective buyer. “See how he trippies”, he said, to which the buyer replied: “Yes, but you do not mention this near horse; look at him prancing, why do you say nothing about him?” The seller replied: “No, this near horse sells itself’. If I were now to continue to praise the hon. member, he may begin to feel that he cannot sell himself.

I thank hon. members for their support.

Mr. Chairman, I said during the Second Reading debate that we accepted, in principle, the necessity to control small craft. I was, however, a little alarmed to hear the hon. the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate because he seemed to indicate that they did not want to control this aspect, in other words they do not want sea speed cops and all that. Am I to understand from that that the hon. the Minister has decided not to adopt the recommendation of the Reinecke Commission, because if he decides that there shall be no control—in other words, if he is going to exempt all these craft—this would be going against the advice of most of the people who operate small craft and their organizations. This evidence was submitted to the Reinecke Commission, and I think it may again be necessary to quote from the report (par. 6.1.1, page 37)—

Then it goes on to state how the commission thinks it should recommend controls. I must, however, urge the hon. the Minister to realize that there is a great necessity for control. People do not usually like being controlled, but when both the public and private sector give evidence before a commission and say that control is absolutely necessary because human lives are involved, I believe the hon. the Minister must do something. I realize that the whole Merchant Shipping Act is being rewritten, but in principle the hon. the Minister and the department have to make some decision on what they are going to do about small craft. I am prepared to accept the fact that the hon. the Minister is doing something as an interim measure, but if it is anything more than an interim measure, I am afraid that we shall have to oppose this clause, and would even reconsider our support for the Bill during the Third Reading stage, because we believe that the commission’s report is a very good report indeed. We believe that control is necessary. All the evidence indicates that if we are going to save lives, we must exercise control some way or other.

Mr. Chairman, why does the hon. member think I am introducing this provision now?

I do not know.

I am doing so because I want to do certain things. The hon. member cannot, however, ask me what I am going to do in regard to ski boats, pleasure boats or any small boats. My reply is that I am introducing this clause to implement certain recommendations of the Reinecke Commission, especially for the purpose of exercising control. The details will, however, have to be worked out and the control exercised by regulation, but I want the power to make the regulations and to implement them if necessary. It must be done. That is why I have brought this legislation before Parliament. So I do not think there is any difference between our views.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. the Minister will not mind my saying this, but he has tended to contradict himself. He says he wants the power to licence small craft, but then says he must have the power to exempt small craft from being licenced because he would not be able to control them. I understand the problems involved, but the point I tried to make during the Second Reading debate was that I believe that he should pass these practical problems on to a lower form of controlling body. I and my party are very much of the opinion that the best form of control is that which is closest to hearth and home, in other words closer to the people who are being controlled. That is why I told the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate that he should not look upon this control as being something that is going to be exercised by his department when it comes to doing the policing. He should rather look to the clubs that are involved. I am sure I have made my point clear, but I too am very much concerned about what the hon. the Minister said.

I think it would be a great waste of taxpayer’s money if, after two commissions, the Reinecke and Treumicht Commissions, which have looked into this matter from various angles, this whole thing is to be shelved or filed away in filing cabinets to gather dust. I would have thought that by now the department should have had some idea of what it can do and should do in order to get on top of this problem. I think it is such an urgent matter that I do not think that it can be shelved for another year or two. I believe we must have action, and I am sure that if the hon. the Minister and his department look into the details of the evidence that was placed before the two commissions they would find the answer to this problem. The answer does not lie with officials of the department doing the policing. It lies with the people directly concerned, those who are enjoying the sport, policing themselves.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to comment on the hon. the Minister’s reply. I accept his good offices. I believe that he probably has the right intentions, but the report of the Reinecke Commission has been in the hands of the Government for some months now. They have had quite long enough time to decide on their attitude to the report of this commission. I know the hon. the Minister is getting into the swing of a new portfolio and this might be considered as one of the less important aspects of that portfolio. The report of the Fisheries Commission has also been in the hands of the Government for some time now and we have not yet had any major reaction from the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. The point is, however, that lives are being lost and that there is urgency. We accept the hon. the Minister’s good offices. We believe in the recommendations of these two commissions and we ask the hon. the Minister to do something as urgently as possible. On that basis we shall support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, according to clause 68 of the present Act, small craft must be licensed. They must also have safety equipment. This clause is to empower me in the case of certain sporting craft to refer, as the hon. member for Amanzimtoti says, to the specific clubs concerned.

*We speak the same language, Sir. There is no difference. The only difficulty is that the one is a little more obtuse than the other. I cannot understand why we have to disagree about this. I agree that to the purpose of this Bill is the implementation of the recommendations of the Reinecke Commission and of all the other investigations we have had, but we want to do so in a practical way. I have to obtain the assistance of certain clubs that have the knowledge and the staff. My department does not have the people to appoint as a lot of sea speedcops. We are going to do it in accordance with the recommendations of the various committees of inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to belabour this point, but should just like to say for the record that the hon. the Minister must realize that in this Bill there is an amendment to the definition of “small vessel.” These vessels were not controlled before and did not have to be licensed. In terms of this clause they will now have to be licensed, unless they are exempted.

That is right.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Republic is a signatory to three international conventions that seek to combat unlawful interference with civil aviation at the international level. They are: the Tokyo Convention of 1963, the Hague Convention of 1970 and the Montreal Convention of 1971. Apart from this, the Republic is also a member of the International Civil Aviation Organization which was founded by the Chicago Convention of 1944.

This means that the Republic has a commitment to the international civil aviation community to contribute its share towards protecting air transport against the threat of disruption, and to make every effort to promote safe air traffic. Due to national security considerations too, however, the Republic is obliged to maintain the safety of air transport in South Africa. With a view to the obligations mentioned above, the Civil Aviation Offences Act was passed as far back as 1972. In terms of that Act powers are vested in the Minister of Transport Affairs to make regulations enabling him to implement the provisions of the Act.

Unfortunately the empowering provision of the Act, section 2L, does not go nearly far enough to afford the Minister sufficient powers, in the light of demands made by prevailing circumstances, to make appropriate regulations enabling implementation of essential safety measures to be regulated on a statutory basis.

To be adequate, the implementation of safety measures must take into account three basic requirements, namely planning, coordinated action and secrecy.

†As far as planning is concerned, this Bill provides for the drafting of safety plans. In these plans provision will, inter alia, be made for the steps to be taken in times of a crisis.

A co-ordinated effort is necessary to give proper effect to planning, especially since various authorities which are independent of one another are involved in this venture. Therefore a committee will be established to advise the Minister regarding the safety of civil aviation and the effective application of the provisions of this Act. It is the intention that representatives of the following authorities should serve on this committee: The South African Defence Force, the South African Airways, the South African Police and Railways Police, the National Intelligence Service, the Department of Transport, and authorities controlling airports other than State airports. Uniformity of action and co-ordination will be enhanced by the designation of specific persons to apply the provisions of the Act and of safety plans.

It goes without saying that safety measures are meaningless if they cannot be kept secret. Provision therefor is consequently made in the proposed section 2L(b).

*The existing empowering provision of the Act is still inadequate to provide for any of the essential requirements mentioned. No planning or co-ordinated action with regard to safety measures can be arranged statutorily in terms of this measure. Moreover, every security measure will have to spelt out in detail in the regulations. Such a situation is untenable and makes the implementation of the Act virtually impossible. Amendment of the empowering provision of the Act is therefore essential.

In its amended form, the empowering provision also provides for certain additional matters relating to the three mentioned basic requirements and for provisions which must be laid down concerning the improved implementation of the Act as a whole, for example the designation of airports as airports for the purposes of the Act, the appointment and qualifications of officers concerned with the implementation of the regulations, and so on.

There has been due consultation with a variety of bodies, and all regard this measure as essential.

I shall also move that the proposed section 2L(e)(ii) be deleted. I shall do so at the request of the Bar Council in order to achieve greaer fairness, just as I did in the previous legislation at the recommendation of the Bar Council. I take it that the official Opposition will welcome this.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that after listening to the introductory speech by the hon. the Minister I feel a little happier than I did before. There appears to be a certain urgency in establishing the committee as provided for in this Bill, a committee to which the S.A. Defence Force, S.A. Police, the Railway Police and other authorities can get together to plan for airports. I can see that there is urgency in this. I think I should, however, take the hon. the Minister to task for introducing legislation of this nature when, I would presume, the report of the Margot Commission, which has sat for some time now looking at the whole situation vis-à-vis civil aviation, is imminent. It may even have appeared already, although it has not come to my attention. I have been unable to find out whether it has in fact been submitted. I would imagine, however, that after all this time it must be very nearly with us. Perhaps I can ask the hon. the Minister when it will be tabled. This report is going to be of tremendous importance to the whole area of civil aviation. Over a period, the predecessors of this hon. Minister have told us to hold our horses because the Government was awaiting the report of the Margot Commission. Now the hon. the Minister himself has introduced this piece of legislation which makes provision for matters in civil aviation which might well come under review as soon as the report of the commission is to hand. I have no quarrel at all with the fact that the Minister may in terms of clause 2 make regulations relating to “the establishment, constitution and functions of a committee” of this nature. But the normal practice in legislation of this sort is virtually to write the constitution of such a body, such an advisory committee or such a controlling committee into the Act itself. Therefore we are giving the hon. the Minister a fair amount of latitude if we agree to clause 2 because he may form a committee. I am not a legal man but I would have said that the hon. the Minister and his department would be able to consult with anybody about matters to do with civil aviation even without this clause in the Bill. I am therefore actually rather at sea as to why it was necessary to change the original section 2L of the principal Act. I have studied with some mystification some of the proposed new section 2L and I have no quarrel with it, except for the portion that the hon. the Minister has now agreed to withdraw on the advice of the Bar Council. Again I am very grateful that he has taken the advice of the Bar Council because I thought that the old paragraph (e)(ii) was not a good one at all.

As I say, I have no quarrel with this, but I do believe that it is important that the hon. the Minister should inform us when we can expect the Margot Commission Report and why it was necessary to introduce this Bill at this stage just when that report is imminent. There is nothing with which we can quarrel in this Bill apart from what the hon. the Minister is going to withdraw and we shall therefore support it at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it seldom happens that the hon. member for Orange Grove admits there is something he does not understand. Today, however, he did so. The Bill is a very important Bill because it gives effect to the Act passed in 1972 to restrict the hijackings of aircraft. We all know that in recent times hijackings of aircraft have become a kind of fashion. The hijacking of an aircraft is a reckless act committed by a reckless person. It is extortion of the worst kind. It is even worse than piracy or highway robbery in the old days. Where there are 300 to 400 people in one aircraft, a hijacker is willing to imperil their lives to achieve what is sometimes a very petty objective which, to his limited intelligence, may seem important. For that he places the lives of innocent people at risk. Therefore this international convention is very important. It is not possible to bar all apparatus at an airport which could be used for blackmail purposes. There are no machines to detect plastic objects. Accordingly, heavy penalties have to be imposed by law, penalties which can serve as a deterrent. In the legislation provision is made for a minimum penalty of five years and a maximum of 30 years, which is really a heavy penalty. I think this could serve as a deterrent if it was indeed implemented world-wide.

I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether, subsequent to those conventions at which the undertaking was given that all countries must do this, all countries did in fact duly accept this? Is it being implemented accordingly? Why, then, do we still have continual hijackings? Are there still countries willing to offer refuge to such people after they have hijacked an aircraft? Is it not, then, possible for international law to be adapted so that everyone may be obliged to participate in its implementation?

I have one more important question. What about the so-called hoaxer who picks up the telephone and alleges that he has placed a bomb on some aircraft? He causes a great deal of inconvenience for a number of people. All the luggage has to be removed from the aircraft and opened. In this way long delays are sometimes caused. Do the provisions of the legislation under discussion now also apply to offenders of this nature? As I understand the legislation, the provisions apply only after the door of the aircraft has been closed. I should like to know exactly how people who do such things, people who prevent the public from going their way without let or hindrance, can be dealt with effectively.

We find the essence of this Bill in the proposed new section 2L(1)(a) which provides for the establishment, constitution and functions of a central committee, a committee which will have three very important duties. In the first place the committee will be entrusted with the planning of security measures. In the second place, the committee will be entrusted with the planning of co-ordinated action at airports. In the third place, the committee will be entrusted with the task of keeping secret the steps taken. I believe that if these security measures were allowed to be made known they would be of no value whatsoever. That is why secrecy is so important in this regard.

I now wish to refer to the proposed new section 2L(1)(c) in which it is provided that officers in the service of the State must be designated. To me this provision is somewhat vague. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether these officers ought not perhaps to be better defined. Should it not perhaps be provided that such an officer should have a certain rank or status? This is the kind of officer who will perform a very important job. I should therefore like to know whether it is not perhaps necessary to define clearly in the legislation the qualifications required of such an officer.

To conclude, I just wish to point out that we in South Africa can be grateful that we have thus far been safeguarded against serious incidents of aircraft hijacking. We ought to be grateful for the steps which the SAA has taken thus far at our airports. It is true that we sometimes become a little impatient when delays occur. However, these are very important matters. I believe that our airline is careful. However, they can never be careful enough, and if additional methods can be found, then I believe that a committee such as that proposed in the legislation under discussion is the right body to undertake studies of this nature and to put forward plans. I believe that if legislation of this nature is passed and implemented strictly, not only here in South Africa, but throughout the world, then prospective hijackers will think twice before acting.

Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting this Bill. We believe it is very regrettable that we should live in an age in which the authorities have to resort to the kind of measures such as the one before us here today in order to try to prevent hijackers, terrorists and the like from terrorizing the public.

I do feel that because one of the greatest advantages these people have is the element of surprise it is perhaps very wise of the hon. the Minister to put this measure before the House now. If we are well prepared for such an occurrence the element of surprise cannot be to the advantage of the terrorist or hijacker, and we therefore support this Bill.

What I am concerned about, however, is the fact that this is the second measure which has been brought before the House today concerning security matters—matters in which the Government so often prides itself on being so expert and efficient. Here we have a measure before us which is designed to set up a committee to investigate security at our airports. I thought it had already been done. After all, we have had all sorts of machines, inter alia, X-ray machines put into our airport buildings and we have all seen armoured cars running around in the vicinity of the buildings. I know that there is one parked on the concrete apron at Louis Botha, but I have often wondered what will happen if there is a sudden emergency there, because often this vehicle is just parked there with no person to operate it close by. Perhaps there is somebody nearby who can spring into action. However, as I have already said, I was under the impression that this had already been well planned and that we were prepared for any such event.

The fact that we are not concerns me, but I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to put things right. I only hope that it does not develop into another time and money wasting bureaucratic committee. I sincerely hope that with the new Minister in charge, highly efficient and highly trained teams that can spring into action at a moment’s notice will emerge, which will ensure that the element of surprise will not be to the advantage of any potential terrorist or hijacker.

In view of the fact that it has not been done before, we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has brought the legislation before the House. We shall therefore support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti actually summarized the whole situation by saying that we want highly effective action to protect our planes and people. This is in fact the whole idea behind the legislation.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked a reasonable question when he enquired when we would be getting the report of the Margot Commission. I want to tell the hon. member that we should have it during the second half of 1981. In the interim period, however, we must have these regulations. In passing I just want to tell the hon. member that he will not be here when the report becomes available.

What is the bet?

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked whether international law and regulations were not applicable with regard to hijackings and people who had to be protected due to the hijacking of the aircraft in which they were travelling. I think he knows how things stand with regard to this kind of matter. In some countries, Cuba for example, international regulations are disregarded whereas we regard it as our duty to implement them. He also asked in what instances the legislation was applicable. It applies when an aircraft is in the air or in service. “In service” also refers to the advance preparation for a period of 24 hours before the aircraft takes off. These are some of the appropriate provisions.

In reply to a further question he put, I take pleasure in pointing out to him that whereas we do not qualify the ranks of the public servants in question, they will, in the nature of the matter, be some of the most senior officials, working under the direct supervision of the chief of the department which will implement this kind of thing.

Personally I had the feeling that hon. members on both sides of the House are aware of the serious nature of the legislation and its implementation for the protection of our people. Whatever political party one belongs to, when one is travelling in an aircraft one wants a feeling of protection when certain activities take place. That is why we have introduced this measure in this House.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

As I explained during the Second Reading debate, this amendment is being moved at the request of the Bar Council in order to make the legislation more meaningful and fair.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated in the Second Reading debate, we welcome this amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I only fear that if he gets any more liberal by bringing in amendments like these he might have trouble in getting the Delmas nomination!

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members who have studied the Bill, will agree with me that the amendments that are being envisaged, are largely self-explanatory. However, I briefly want to point out the necessity of some of the provisions.

The implementation of the Explosives Act, 1956, was the responsibility of the Department of Commerce to begin with. In terms of his powers, the State President entrusted the administration of the Act to the S.A. Police as from 1 April 1978, and the amendments contained in clauses 1 and 2 are in fact aimed at embodying this change in the Act.

Clauses 3 to 9 are aimed exclusively at increasing certain penalties and do not require further explanation. All of us are most probably aware of the decrease in the value of money.

Notwithstanding the provision of section 92 of the Magistrates’ Courts’ Act, 1944, clause 10 envisages granting the power to regional courts to impose the penalties referred to in section 27(1)(c) and (1A) in cases where such penalties may be justified.

As hon. members know, a regional court is empowered to impose a sentence of not more than 10 years’ imprisonment, whilst the maximum penalties contained in section 27(1)(a) and (1A) of the Explosives Act, may be up to 15 years. Of course, the proposed amendment does not mean that cases falling within the purview of those sections will be heard by regional courts only. Depending on how serious the situation is, an Attorney-General may decide to prosecute an accused in a higher court.

The only other provision that requires explanation, is clause 11. If hon. members note the definition of the expression “manufacture” in the Explosives Act, they will find that it is particularly wide and amongst other things also includes the conversion, alteration, division and even the repair of an explosive substance.

Now it is true that the S.A. Police and the Defence Force are obliged from time to time to investigate explosives or explosive devices that are introduced to the country by terrorist groups, to divide them, alter them or convert them in order to ascertain the exact workings thereof. What is more, it is essential for them to devise similar equipment themselves and to test them for training purposes and in order to know exactly how to put such equipment out of action if it should be discovered. The proposed amendment is being moved in order to grant the necessary power for such actions to the Security Forces.

Clauses 12 and 13 are self-evident.

Mr. Speaker, from the security point of view, and bearing in mind the times in which we live, there is no doubt a need for the measure which the hon. the Minister has brought before the House. He has indicated that the question of increased penalties arises—one aspect, at any rate—from the consideration that there has been a change in the value of money. So therefore the penalties and fines involved have been increased in terms of this measure. One does hope that the hon. the Minister achieves his aims. There is certainly a need for the use, storage, manufacture and possession of explosives to be very strictly controlled, and one hopes that the increased fines and penalties being imposed in this legislation will achieve that purpose. Whilst I can see why it is important that the use of explosives should be restricted, there sometimes seems to me to be an inconsistency on the part of the Government in this respect. If one accepts the need to restrict the use of explosives, I wonder—from the point of view of the security of the country—why the Government does not also give attention to measures to restrict the issuing and use of fire-arms in South Africa, because this is a matter of very grave concern. One will find more and more people rushing to gun shops, and advertisements in newspapers all over the country. I think it is high time, for the security of the State and the individuals within the State, that very serious attention was given to the whole question of the issuing of fire-arms in South Africa and their use generally.

Having said that, let me add that there are one or two matters in the Bill in respect of which I have some reservations and on which I should like to seek some reassurance from the hon. the Minister. I am referring to clause 2 of the Bill which proposes to substitute “Commissioner of the South African Police or any member of the South African Police” for “Secretary for Commerce or an officer in his department”, the said Commissioner or member of the S.A. Police to have the authority to “depute other persons to act as inspectors”. I know there is also the proviso that such persons deputed to act as inspectors shall have all other rights but “shall have no jurisdiction to try any person for breaches of regulations or special rules”, as other inspectors, in terms of the principal Act, have had. I hope that very great care is going to be taken, in the deputing by the Commissioner or any member of the S.A. Police, to ensure that anyone who is so deputed is, at least, a person of some experience. One would hope that a new recruit, for example—with all due respect—would not be given this sort of responsibility and that the Commissioner of Police would exercise great discretion in the sort of person to whom he deputes the authority to act as an inspector, bearing in mind the very wide authority that inspectors have. This is my one reservation, and I seek reassurance from the hon. the Minister on that score.

This brings me to the proposed new section 29 which proposes to give a regional court authority to hear certain matters referred to in section 27(1)(c) or (1A). I am to some extent satisfied when the hon. the Minister says this will not be exclusive authority and that the Attorney-General will not be disallowed from referring the matter to a superior court: But I do think that where penalties of this nature involving imprisonment of up to 15 years can be the result of any trial, I would be much happier if this received the attention of a superior court. I say this with all due respect to the status of our regional courts. Generally I view with some concern the move to take away the rights of superior courts and give them to a lower court.

These are some reservations I have, Sir, but in general terms, in the light of the situation which exists and the changing value of money I believe that this measure is probably necessary. I hope it will be effective in restricting the use, control and manufacture of explosives, but I want to come back to the other question to which I hope the hon. the Minister will also give some consideration in the interests of the security of the State and individuals in the State and that is restricting the use and issue of fire-arms in this country.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that it was a good thing that he supported this measure. I see the hon. member has a few problems with regard to the legislation. The first is that there should be better control over the licensing of fire-arms. He is most probably aware of the fact that at this stage the Government has already gone so far as licensing air-guns. The Government is also looking very seriously and carefully at issuing licences for fire-arms. Secondly, as far as the Police designating authorized persons is concerned, I think it is obvious that a responsible organization like the South African Police would ensure that responsible people exercise these powers. But as far as the third aspect is concerned, viz. the extended jurisdiction of the regional court, it seems to me as if the hon. member is not aware of the provisions of section 29 of the existing Act. The existing Act already empowers regional courts to hear this type of case. It is simply a question of an extended jurisdiction which empowers the regional courts to impose penalties which this Act has already granted to other courts. Therefore, it is not a case of extended jurisdiction being granted to regional courts.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned, I support it. It is in fact an elaboration on the measure which was passed by the House in 1956 and referred to a Select Committee at the time. The Select Committee undertook an investigation into the effect of the Bill. It was a consolidating Bill, and at the same time the Dutch text was translated into Afrikaans. Evidence was gathered from the Chief Government Legal Adviser and another legal adviser. It was reported that existing legislation was not affected by the amendment to the Act of 1956. The Bill was passed without any problem at the time. Therefore, what is happening here when the Minister of Economic Affairs is replaced by the Minister of Police, is that the Act is being brought into line with the position in practice. The purpose of this amendment is better country-wide control over explosives.

As far as the increase in penalties is concerned, the decrease in the value of money had to be taken into account—as the hon. the Minister pointed out. However, it must also be seen as a serious attempt on the part of the Government to take action against unlicensed people who manufacture explosives or have explosives in their possession at the moment. In most cases the fines alone are increased, but in clause 8 the period of imprisonment is now also being doubled. This has a bearing on the case where someone obstructs an inspector in the exercise of his duty.

The fact that regional courts are receiving increased jurisdiction for hearing penal cases emanating from this legislation, is in accordance with other measures according to which regional courts have the right to impose higher penalties than they are empowered to do in terms of the Magistrate’s Courts Act. As I pointed out a moment ago, section 29 already granted this power to regional courts.

However, I consider clause 11 to be the most important provision of the Bill. It is in the interests of State security that the police and the Defence Force should have the right to divide an explosive and deal with it as laid down in the legislation. In this regard the Defence Force and the Police are carrying out a mammoth task. In times of terrorism, sabotage and subversion of the authority of the Government, it is obvious that experts from the Forces should have the power to analyse and divide explosives. We still read too often about children in particular, handling explosives and then being seriously injured. Deaths also occur from time to time. It is important that the discovery of these objects should be reported to the nearest police station. These objects are being manufactured in an increasingly sophisticated and elaborate way and we must be continually vigilant in the national interest. I am pleased to support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this measure. In doing so, we should like to associate ourselves with much of what was said by the hon. member for Musgrave. I agree whole-heartedly with his raising the issue of delegation via the Minister in respect of any member of the S.A. Police. It is to be hoped—and I am sure it will be so—that at all times the authority will be delegated to people of adequate responsibility.

As regards the clauses concerned with increasing of fines and terms of imprisonment, we have no argument with any of this. I suppose one might almost say that this is one of the results of inflation, if no other factor. In respect of the proposed new section 29 I have no comment other than to say that I believe that it is an improvement on the existing situation.

We were a little concerned about the term “manufacture”. We are very pleased that the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech told us exactly what is meant by the “manufacture” of explosives, because I think that, as it reads, it could be a little confusing. His explanation has, however, cleared up any confusion there might have been. With these few words we have pleasure in supporting this measure through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the official Opposition and the hon. member for Umhlanga for supporting this Bill. I also want to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for his contribution in support of this measure.

I can give the hon. member for Musgrave the assurance that the official to be appointed in terms of clause 2 will be someone who will have undergone comprehensive training in this particular field and who will only be appointed after a strict selection even after he has completed his training. So there will be a strict selection before any appointment. It must be a responsible person. Only experienced people, and not youngsters, will be considered, as in the past. The hon. member can be assured of that.

He does not have to be a member of the S.A. Police?

Not necessarily, but if he does happen to be a member of the S.A. Police he will be an experienced member. He will be a member of rank. He will be a member of the police who can be entrusted after training with this particular authority.

As far as the second request is concerned, I can also assure the hon. member that this penalty clause is definitely not reserved just for the regional courts. It is just a question of our also having to make provision for this in the Act. The hon. member can rest assured that it is not reserved just for the regional courts.

As far as the first point is concerned that the hon. member made about the possession and the carrying of fire-arms, I want to assure the hon. member and the House that I am considering legislating in another Bill, a Bill to be tabled later in the year, if circumstances permit, to provide for the control of the carrying of especially hand guns by individuals. The situation exists today where people are carrying these hand guns in their back pockets, in their belts and elsewhere on their persons, and I am not prepared to allow that any more.

Quite right.

Therefore I intend introducing legislation later in the year which, subject to certain circumstances, will I am sure have the support of the hon. member for Musgrave.

You introduce it and we shall support you.

Thank you. I have given the necessary assurance to the hon. member for Umhlanga.

*I think with this I have disposed of the few points raised by hon. members.

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

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the official Opposition and the NRP for their co-operation in affording me the opportunity of discussing and disposing of the legislation this afternoon. I appreciate that.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The problem of pollution of the sea by oil has assumed international proportions. South Africa is not alone in its efforts to cope with it. Throughout the world nations are concerned about the pollution of the oceans because their value as a source of food and minerals is being increasingly realized.

Over the years the conveyance of oil has caused people considerable vexation. Recently this vexation has been aggravated, since the ships in which the crude oil is conveyed have become ocean giants. When an oil spill from such a large ship occurs, it could have disastrous consequences.

As long ago as the ’twenties a number of nations met to consider this problem. In 1954 a convention for the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil was agreed to. The Convention was amended in 1962, 1969 and 1971 to make provision for subsequent needs. In 1969 South Africa gave consideration to becoming a signatory to the Convention but decided against this step. Nevertheless the principles contained in the Convention are incorporated in the present South African Act—the Prevention and Combating of Pollution of the Sea by Oil Act, No. 67 of 1971.

†Tanker owners realized that they were open to large claims for damage caused by discharges from their ships, and in 1968 the International Tanker Owners Pollution Federation Ltd., was established in London, which gave rise to the Tanker Owners Voluntary Agreement concerning Liability for Oil Pollution, better known as Tovalop. It must be remembered that Tovalop is a voluntary organization, but one which is not a satisfactory solution to the problem.

Consequently the International Maritime Consultative Organization—IMCO—an organization of the United Nations, saw to it that the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage was signed in Brussels, on 29 November 1969. Since then Tovalop featured mainly in those cases not covered by CLC.

South Africa acceded to CLC on 17 March 1976, but to give effect to its provisions they must form part of South African law. This is the main reason for this Bill being introduced, replacing the present Act No. 67 of 1971.

The main principles of CLC, and which have been incorporated in the Bill, are the following:

1. 1. The owner of a ship carrying oil in bulk as cargo is strictly liable—barring certain limited exceptions—for any pollution damage caused by oil which has escaped or been discharged from his ship.
2. 2. The owner of such a ship shall be entitled to limit his liability under the Convention, unless the incident occurred as a result of the actual fault or privity of the owner.
3. 3. The owner of a ship carrying more than 2 000 tons of oil in bulk as cargo shall be required to maintain insurance or other financial security in the sums fixed by applying the limits of liability prescribed in the Convention.
4. 4. Any claim for compensation for pollution damage may be brought directly against the insurer of the owner’s liability.

Not only the cost of cleaning up pollution caused by a ship can be claimed from the owner as is the case at present, but the owner shall be Hable to anyone for loss or damage resulting from the discharge of oil from such a ship. Apart from our accession to CLC necessitating that the Republic amend or replace the present Act, our experience since 1972 has also taught us where the provisions of the present Act are inadequate. Accordingly certain existing provisions have been amended, others omitted and a number of new ones introduced. Examples are the definitions of “ship”, “prohibited area”, “offshore installation” and clause 3.

One aspect that I wish to emphasize is that Act 67 of 1971, and also this Bill, deal only with pollution of the sea by oil. They do not cover other forms of pollution.

*Because we realize that this Bill has very wide ramifications, we published it for comment in the Gazette and also circulated it directly to various organizations, at home and abroad. I am convinced that criticism levelled at the Bill as it was published has largely been eliminated, inter alia, through discussions with those who commented on it.

I have now brought a few of the main principles contained in the Bill to the attention of hon. members. However, I should like to say a few words about the part played by the Department of Transport in the prevention and combating of pollution of the sea by oil. The fact that we are making provision in legislation for the recovery of damages resulting from oil spillages at sea does not indemnify us against the damage caused by such spillages. In addition owners may also reasonably expect that the control measures applied at the time oil spillages occur are effective. My department is therefore intent on being prepared to take action at any time and any place along our long coastline to reduce the consequences of oil pollution of the ocean, the coast and the rivers to a minimum.

For this purpose there are, inter alia, five spraying ships called Coast Guard I to Coast Guard V at the disposal of my department to patrol our coastal waters for the purpose of locating and spraying oil spills. In addition either the John Ross or the Wolraad Woltemade, the two most powerful ocean-going tugboats in the world—I wish to emphasize this—are on constant stand by to go to the assistance of tankers in distress or tankers which have broken down. Special equipment is kept at strategic places and an extensive communications network is maintained for reporting oil spills. Admittedly further needs still exist, particularly in regard to the location of oil spills, communications systems and the clearing up of oil on the ocean, but attention is being given to these matters.

I am aware that the Department of Transport and its relevant officials—there are not many of them—are doing everything possible to ensure that they are not caught napping if a disaster should overtake us. This means that I can rest easily at night in the knowledge that the Government has made proper provision for coping with a crisis.

†A matter which has been outstanding for a considerable time and which has often been discussed here and abroad, is contingency planning. The South African coast stretches over 2 700 kilometres, from Mozambique to the mouth of the Orange River, with continuously varying physical conditions. There is only one solution, namely separate plans for pre-selected areas, depending upon the particular characteristics of the beaches and beach approaches, population density, ecological and economical importance of the sea and adjoining coastal areas and scores of other considerations.

The task is enormous and the department does not aim at completing it in the near future. However, by concentrating on those areas where oil spillages are likely to occur, and taking the ecological and economical priorities into consideration, I trust that the major portion of the coast will be covered within a reasonable period of time.

*I intend to amend clauses 1, 10 and 19 in order to improve the definitions and to promote fairness in the case of claims as well as in the case of the detention of ships.

Mr. Speaker, again we have a piece of legislation before us which I do not think anybody in the House will oppose. It is an improvement on existing legislation. There is no doubt at all that, because of the serious damage that can be done to the environment, tough emergency action has to be taken by the authorities, in this case the Department of Transport, to avoid this damage and to ensure that our environment is not in some cases irreparably damaged, because the effects of oil pollution can be quite horrible.

I had an opportunity to see a demonstration by the Kuswag vessels at Saldanha Bay some little time ago. I was invited by the Department of Transport to be present, and I must say it was a most interesting experience. It would have been very good if some of the members of the NP, who were also invited along on that occasion, had availed themselves of the opportunity to see this. I was pleased to see that at least the hon. member for Walmer, who is now a member of the NP, went along. He was the only other NP there on that occasion. He will now be able to advise his colleagues on how efficiently the Department of Transport operates. It was a most interesting operation. We saw the equipment used by the Kuswag vessels and also one of the enormous tug-boats the hon. the Minister talked about. I am sure that already the department is fairly well organized to cope with the threat of pollution by large oil slicks such as we have seen so often in recent years. I realize that the task is enormous. With a coastline of 2 700 km and a variety of terrains it is of course necessary to have different plans of operation and to approach the problem in different ways. Certain difficulties arise when, for example, one is in amongst rocks or on beaches. It is an enormous problem.

I must say that I am very glad indeed that South Africa has decided to go along with the International Convention on this. It is an international problem and, unless handled on an international basis with something approaching the same sort of regulations being applicable in every country which is a signatory to the convention, it will make it more difficult to get any sort of uniformity. If ship-owners, whose ships, of course, sail through the territorial waters of many countries, have to abide by totally different regulations in the territorial waters of each country their ships go through, it would be impossible for them to comply. So international standards in this matter are a great necessity.

I intend to comment at much greater length on certain clauses during the Committee Stage. In principle we approve of this Bill, but there are a few aspects I can probably raise at this stage. Specifically, I am very glad that we are still in a situation where the owner of a ship or tanker who is liable for damages of one sort or another is also going to be liable for costs to compensate the S.A. National Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds and similar organizations. Perhaps I can take this opportunity to commend these organizations for the tremendous work they do. Anybody who has seen oil-bedraggled penguins or malgas gannets can only be very thankful indeed that such organizations do exist. To clean up these birds is a rather unpleasant job. The penguins are now an endangered species, because there are fewer and fewer penguins along our coastline. In fact, some authorities are convinced that our South African jackass penguins are going to die out. It is therefore very important that organizations like this be encouraged. They do tremendous work. If we are to preserve our environment and the bird life of our coasts, it is extremely important that this work be continued and that some underwriting of the costs incurred in working on these sea birds should be provided for, so that these people can carry out their work in the full knowledge that they will be able to get something back, because most of them work on a shoe-string. Many of them have no money at all but nevertheless do this work from a sense of dedication and in the belief that the environment must be preserved. I regret to say that although this Bill copes very adequately with the whole problem of oil pollution it goes no further than that. Perhaps now is the time to make a plea for a more general control of pollution, at least in our territorial waters. I know that to this extent this Bill extends pollution control over a larger area than our territorial waters but perhaps we should extend it to things such as sewage.

A heated argument is now being pursued in two of our major sea ports about the pumping of sewage into the sea and the pollution of the sea by the pumping of this sewage. We are in a situation where there is divided control of this sort of pollution. I am unable to comment on scientific argument to the effect that pumping of sewage into the sea is a good or a bad thing but I do believe it is necessary for Government, in a Bill of this nature, to combine all aspects of pollution at sea and not just oil pollution. On the other hand, oil pollution is probably our most pressing problem and there is therefore justification for this revised Bill.

I think I should also express a word of congratulation to the Department which in many ways has proved itself to be a very dynamic department under our new Director-General. I think Bills such as this and one or two others we have seen this afternoon are an indication of that dynamism.

If I have any criticism of the Bill—and I do have some—it is that although it may be necessary to take serious and very tough emergency action when incidences of oil pollution occur, in some instances the action indicated in the Bill is too tough and could result in inequity and unfairness to people who might or might not be responsible for pollution. I shall look with a great deal of interest at the amendments the hon. the Minister intends moving in the clauses he has mentioned. I have not seen them yet but I hope they will go some way towards removing these inequities.

One other question which I think offends us in this party because it involves a principle we do not approve of, is contained in subsection (2) of clause 2 and relates to the presumption of guilt. It states—

This subsection deals with the discharge of oil—

We have grave reservations about this. I shall listen to the hon. the Minister’s reply in this respect and presumably he will be able to justify why it is necessary to take the extreme action of a presumption of guilt. There are incidences in South African law where a presumption of guilt has become necessary. I refer, for example, to something like the receipt of stolen goods where there is justification. I should very much like to hear the hon. the Minister on the whole question of the presumption of guilt section because it is an undesirable aspect of the Bill. He will need to be very convincing indeed if we are going to support that particular provision. Obviously it is only a very small part of a very major Bill in this respect and it will not influence our attitude at Second Reading.

One can go a little further and look at some of the other inequities which are mentioned. I refer specifically to clause 5(3) where the Minister is given very wide powers to obtain materials that he might need to combat any particular incidence of pollution.