Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the arguments advanced by the official Opposition in their amendment. The proposed amendment reads, inter alia, as follows—

It is clear that the official Opposition has decided to concentrate on agricultural and food prices in their attack on the Government during this budget debate. In this regard they have selected a few specific points to concentrate on. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the rising prices of food and maintained that this gave rise to dwindling food consumption. He further argued that the rising food prices resulted in a drop in the welfare level of the community. The PFP went on to argue that subsidies ought to be paid in order to combat the increase in food prices. When one looks at their arguments relating to the increase in prices and dwindling consumption, it is evident that they are based on ignorance and inaccuracy.

When we look at the consumption pattern relating to agricultural products in South Africa it is evident from all available figures over the years that the consumption of these products has increased. The hon. member specifically maintained that the per capita consumption of mealie meal had dropped. How ever, it is not correct to assess volume on this basis.

It is wrong to compare the consumption per capita in this process and then to maintain that the total volume of consumption has dropped. That is not correct. We find that the per capita consumption of white mealie meal has indeed dropped by a certain percentage. In fact, however, the total consumption of white mealie meal has shown an increase over the years. If, then, we look at the total consumption of maize as a whole, it is evident that in the budget submitted by the hon. the Minister this year, the consumption of yellow maize has shown an estimated increase of approximately 5% and that an increase is also expected in the consumption of white maize products. The same trend is also to be found in the consumption of meat.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier argued yesterday that the level of prosperity of our community was dropping due to the rise in prices. Surely that is not correct either. One cannot simply make such an unfounded statement. The level of prosperity of a community does not depend solely on prices, after all. That alone does not determine the level of prosperity of a community. The prosperity of a community is also determined by its income. One has to see these two factors in conjunction. Then, too, I must also point out that the hon. member Prof. Olivier concentrated specifically on the Black community and tried to indicate how the Government was supposedly doing the Black community an injustice due to the increase in food prices. What are the facts of the matter? I have before me a bulletin in which certain statistics in this regard are also provided. Data are provided in connection with these very commodities: white bread and bread in general.

I mention this because this was the one article on which most attention was concentrated during this debate. It is stated here that in 1960 it took the revenue earned by 35,6 minutes of work to purchase one loaf. In 1980 one loaf costs the income which a man earns in 14,5 minutes. Therefore income has risen to such an extent that the level of prosperity of those people has risen despite the price increases. However, hon. members of the Opposition are using the issue of rising food prices as a peg on which to hang their allegations of how the Government is supposedly doing the non-Whites an injustice. This could become a dangerous game. They then go on to maintain that the problem can be solved by increasing the subsidies on those products. Yesterday they attacked the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and said that he increased prices at a time that was convenient for him to obtain votes. However, he countered the attack effectively yesterday. It is on record in this House that I am not opposed to subsidies on principle, for it depends how and in what circumstances those subsidies have to be paid. Let us take a brief look at this.

The hon. members of the Opposition single out meat and say that the price increase with regard to meat has contributed towards a drop in the standard of living of the people. It is true that meat prices have increased tremendously in recent times, but when we look at the index figures we find that over a period of time those price increases have not been so severe on a yearly basis. There is a trend for meat prices to rise very sharply and later to level off, and then to rise sharply at a later stage. Last year the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries laid down the floor prices of meat on 6 June, as he mentioned yesterday. But when did the meat prices really rise? Meat prices rose in the second half of the year, namely August and September, and in what circumstances? Meat prices are based on a floor price, a floor price which serves as a support for the farmer. The Opposition is supposed to believe in free enterprise, but surely meat is sold on an auction-on-the-hook basis. If meat is sold on an auction-on-the-hook basis, then surely it is supply and demand that determines by how much the meat price is going to exceed the floor price. That is the basis on which this occurs. However, hon. members of the Opposition maintain that a subsidy must be paid in this regard, but what are the practical possibilities of paying a subsidy on meat in terms of this system? Surely it is impossible to pay a subsidy in respect of an auction system which operates on a floor price basis. Then, too, there is another aspect. In controlled areas, meat is sold on the hook, but it is also sold at auctions where butchers buy it. How are those subsidies to be implemented there? The hon. members of the Opposition do not know what they are talking about when they say that subsidies can be implemented on this basis.

It is true that subsidies with regard to bread and maize can indeed work in practice. The hon. members of the Opposition are yappers. What is a yapper? A yapper is that type of dog which begins to bark when the moon comes up.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Which word, Mr. Speaker?

The words “yapper” and “dog”.

I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker. It is pointless barking about certain matters that one knows nothing about or about a danger that does not exist. Looking at the matter from this side, one realizes that this cannot be implemented. What do the hon. members also say? They say that the necessary money must be taken from defence and used as food subsidies. The hon. the Minister of Defence, with all his men in the Defence Force, acts to ensure the safety of South Africa, and with the information at their disposal they ascertain what funds are necessary to protect the people of this country, including the PFP. Now, however, the PFP comes along and states that we must take some of those funds to subsidize food, a subsidy which is impractical and cannot be implemented. People who propose that can only do so due to one of two alternative reasons. Either it may be the result of pure ignorance and stupidity, or it may be that there is a deliberate tendency to undermine the Defence Force.

Our children go to the Defence Force too.

They say that their children also go to the Defence Force, but if they undermine the Defence Force in this way, then they are doing the country a disservice. Those hon. members do not possess the knowledge to decide what funds are necessary for the Defence Force, if their knowledge is set against all the knowledge at the disposal of the hon. the Minister of Defence and his officials.

What about the R57 million?

Now we come to bread. Hon. members of the Opposition ask: What does a loaf of bread cost? All the figures in connection with the cost of a loaf of bread have already been provided.

It is contended by the Opposition that the Government is failing to combat violence or to ensure adequate protection against violence. What is the situation? Violence can only take place if the existing order is threatened, viz. when the lawful measures adopted by the Government to maintain order are called into question or when people are encouraged in all kinds of ways to overthrow the existing order. That is when violence occurs.

What procedure is being followed with regard to the squatting at Nyanga? The problems which have arisen in Nyanga are presented here in an emotional way. What happened, however? The Opposition used the situation in Nyanga to indicate what injustices are supposed to be taking place.

There is outrageous injustice.

What is the other side of the story? The Government is irrevocably committed to political separation between White and non-White, and that does not mean injustice towards the non-White, but the recognition of the autonomous political rights of the non-White and the Black man within their own territories.

It is therefore their right to starve, as well. [Interjections.]

That hon. member and all the others who speak as he does are unleashing emotions in South Africa as a result of which violence may occur. That is the basis of the matter.

When one looks at this situation and sees how easily certain people in the country obtain the right of freedom of speech, with a view, too, to the freedom enjoyed by the Press, I ask myself whether these freedoms are not being misused in many respects. This is a question one can well ask oneself. Any right one enjoys—freedom of speech and even freedom of the Press—also entails certain responsibilities. However, if one does not display the necessary sense of responsibility one will have to determine to what extent they are misusing their freedoms. In this regard it is the task of the Government to investigate misuse of freedoms, with reference to what the Opposition has requested, viz. that violence be combated.

In conclusion I want to address a few requests to the hon. the Minister of Finance. As far as subsidies are concerned, there is one aspect I want to raise, viz. the disproportion between the subsidies on wheat and on maize. Appeals have been made before now, and at the beginning of last year we put all the memoranda and data at the disposal of the Minister of Finance. We shall appreciate it if he will have a look at them.

Then, too, I want to ask that agricultural products that rely on export should also qualify for export promotion. I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister were to consider these two aspects and also the other issue I raised, namely the abuses of which certain hon. members are guilty in that they do not realize their responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow much the same pattern as the hon. member for Ventersdorp. One of the most notable features of this budget debate for one who is participating in its final stages, is that there has been a relative lack of attention paid to agriculture. I find this remarkable when one takes into consideration the substantial contribution that agriculture is making to the national economy. But there are certain aspects of the budget which affect agriculture and on which I wish to comment.

In doing so I wish to stress how important it is for South Africa to have a sound and stable agricultural industry if it is to meet the present and the future food requirements of the country. It is a well known fact that the development in a country like South Africa is dependent on its ability to be self sufficient in its food requirements or, to put it more crudely, to feed itself. The emphasis of development in this country is repeatedly directed at industry, with little reference to the part that agriculture must play if this is to be successfully achieved. In other words, there must be a relationship between industrial expansion and agricultural development. One does not have to look far to see evidence of the adverse consequences, in other developing countries, of an imbalance between industrial and agricultural development. One only has to look at some of the countries to the north of us or at some of the South American countries which in spite of tremendous potential, are unable to bolster and support industry due to the fact that they do not have a sound agricultural industry.

The statistics, submitted by the hon. the Minister of Agriculture to hon. members in this House yesterday, pose a question: Is any sector of the community experiencing the ravages of inflation to quite the extent that agriculture is? This became evident again in the Statistical/Economic Review tabled in the House during this debate. I wish to refer to page 25, which reveals a situation in the industry which is such that the costs of agricultural requisites during the period 1978-’79 and 1979-’80 exceed the price received for the primary product. Where is this taking us? The implications of this ominous trend are all too obvious, and I therefore feel that it would be prudent, at this stage, to assess to what degree economic factors have contributed to certain production trends in this country. It is interesting to see exactly what the position is in regard to some of the commodities of which there is at the present time a surplus, and others of which there are shortages. In the maize industry we have an unparalleled surplus, and it is necessary to import wheat and also certain dairy products. Meat prices have also escalated considerably over the last 12 months. It is therefore evident that there are certain production trends that are having a very severe effect on the overall food pattern of this country. It is also evident, from this information, that livestock farming has tended to give way to increased cash-crop production. This, I should like to point out, may not be in the best long-term interest of agriculture, or best from an ecological point of view. In other words, one must question the suitability of certain farming areas to long-term crop production.

In referring to various aspects of the budget itself, I wish to express pleasure at the fact that the hon. the Minister of Finance has seen his way clear to easing the basis of deductions for purchased breeding stock. This is a very positive approach and a very necessary component in the interests of the livestock industry.

However, I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the urgency of the matter of financial involvement in the implementation of the 1975 consolidation proposals. I want to refer particularly to the many farmers who, through no fault of their own, were compelled—when their farms were taken over for consolidation purposes—to accept part payment of some 60% in Government stock at a comparatively low interest rate. These farmers would lose between 25% and 30% if this stock were to be discounted. I appreciate that there is a provision in the budget whereby the holders of such scrip will be able to pledge such stock as security for loans for agricultural purposes with the Land Bank. There are, however, two anomalies here. When the necessary legislation has been passed, the Land Bank will accept and I quote—

I repeat “at a value”—

I now want to pose the question: Why can this not be on a set basis of rand-for-rand?

The second anomaly I wish to put to the hon. the Minister of Finance is that a number of the ex-farmers who no longer wish to farm, but who wish to purchase residential property are landed with these Government bonds. In this respect the Land Bank concession that has been accorded to other sectors, does not apply. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the plight of these farmers, and particularly to the plight of the farmers who now find themselves in so-called “released areas”. Many of these farmers have been waiting for years with the sword of Damocles over their heads, to be paid out for their farms, and are now in the frustrating situation of being unable to purchase land or property elsewhere until they receive compensatory payment that is due to them. This is a situation in which many people in the agricultural sector are suffering extreme hardship. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that this matter should receive his attention at the earliest possible opportunity. There are also people of senior status in this category. There are many of them who cannot afford to leave their properties until such time as they have received payment for the farms on which they are living at present. This is indeed a grievous situation for a number of people in the agricultural community.

With the limited time at my disposal, I still wish to comment briefly on one or two other aspects of the budget as relating to agriculture. Firstly, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the housing concession of R5 000 for farm labourers’ housing and point out that this amount is sufficient to build only one house, or half a house, in a year.

Finally, I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that one of the most essential needs facing the agricultural industry at this stage is that confidence in the agricultural sector should be maintained and extended. The trends to which I have referred are very relevant and, to my mind, one of the biggest dangers confronting agriculture is that there is no desire on the part of a number of young people to take up the cudgels of their forefathers in serving the agricultural industry.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member for Mooi River will pardon me if I do not follow up his line of thinking firstly, because I represent an urban constituency and secondly, because I have at this point in time no particular bone to pick with his party.

Mr. Speaker, while we were having lunch in this House it was brought to our notice that there was a demonstration within the precincts of Parliament. I am further given to understand that the demonstrators had to be discouraged by the police from actually marching on this House. To the best of my knowledge, Sir, it is not only a tradition but a long-standing law that makes it an offence for demonstrations to take place within the precincts of Parliament. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I am given to understand that the hon. member for Houghton who is not in the House at the moment and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens who is also not in the House at the moment were among the demonstrators who tried to march upon the precincts of Parliament.

That is not true.

What is more, Sir, I understand that they were subsequently joined … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Sandton must withdraw that remark.

What must I withdraw, Sir?

The hon. member said, “That is a he”. The hon. member must withdraw that expression.

No, Sir, I said that that member was lying. I did not say it was a lie; I said that that member was lying.

Withdraw!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, I said quite clearly that I had been given to understand this. I think that my information is reliable and that I do not have to doubt it. I was further told that the hon. member who is now becoming so agitated was also seen among the demonstrators, that he joined them later as did the hon. member for Pinelands.

Since it is an offence to march on Parliament and demonstrate here I should like to know whether those hon. members … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Prime Minister called me a “demonstrator”. Surely he is not allowed to do that, Sir?

Did the hon. the Prime Minister say that?

Mr. Speaker, on a point of explanation: I said the hon. member was a demonstrator if he were among the demonstrators.

Mr. Speaker, I said that I was not among the demonstrators. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister must accept my word for that, Sir? [Interjections.]

Order! In that case the hon. the Prime Minister must accept the word of the hon. member for Sandton. Consequently the hon. the Prime Minister must withdraw the word “demonstrator”.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I shall also accept that that hon. member was not among the demonstrators. However, the fact of the matter is that the other hon. members whom I have mentioned were seen among the demonstrators and I should like now to know from their fellow hon. members sitting there whether they associate themselves with that kind of demonstration within the precincts of Parliament or whether they are prepared categorically to dissociate themselves from these demonstrators. [Interjections.] If they are not prepared to dissociate themselves from this demonstration then I should like to know from those hon. members what constitutes extra-Parliamentary activity and what does not. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I think that this is the height of irresponsibility and I think that few countries in the world, if any, other than South Africa are afflicted with an Opposition quite as irresponsible as the one with which we are afflicted. I think that the reason for this, Sir, is fairly obvious. It is simply because the Opposition in South Africa has practically no chance at all of coming to power in the foreseeable future, not only because they associate themselves with this kind of activity but because they pursue policies which are so unrelated to the realities of our situation that the electorate cannot but perceive this very elementary fact.

The result is that the Opposition simply runs no risks of having in the foreseeable future to assume responsibility for their words and their deeds. They very often say and do things without any regard to the consequences for this country internally and externally. This, I submit, was demonstrated adequately by the debate of the past few days and comes to the fore even more if one compares their performance in the two budget debates of the past two years.

As hon. members will recall, the run up to the previous budget was the gold bonanza and Opposition spokesman after Opposition spokesman latched on to this magic phrase as if it were the panacea for all ills. The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to use the gold bonanza to abolish sales tax on foodstuffs and other essentials. He wanted to raise salaries and wages in the public sector across the board. He wanted to increase all manner of pensions. The hon. member for Houghton, who still is not in the House, wanted to spend all or part of it on improving housing in Soweto. The hon. member for Musgrave wanted to spend all or part of it on creating a unified educational system. The hon. member for Hillbrow wanted to spend it on pensions. The hon. member for Bryanston wanted to spend it on nursing salaries. The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to spend it on increased agricultural and food subsidies. So it went on, and by the time the Second Reading was over, the Opposition had spent the entire gold bonanza many, many times over.

Even they must know that one cannot simply dish out largess in the seven rich years only to take it away again in the seven lean years. No government in the world, with the exception of some dictatorships, can increase Public Service salaries and take them away again when the gold bonanza had dried up. However, that is how they behave. One must ask oneself why.

If one peruses their Press, the Opposition Press of that time, then the answer is very apparent. Like the HNP, the Opposition was expecting a general election in that year, by October—certainly not later than October and probably before. That is why they just dished out the gold bonanza without any regard to the consequences. It was perhaps highly popular but certainly not very responsible.

Before the budget the gold price had penetrated the magic barrier of $800 an ounce. By the beginning of this year it was well on its way down, and shortly before this budget it had dipped beneath the rather more mundane barrier of only $400 an ounce.

When the hon. member for Yeoville became aware when a general election was to be held, he of course changed his tune. What did the hon. the Minister of Finance think he was doing? was one of the questions he asked. What had happened, he said in that debate, was that the hon. the Minister thought that he could fool the people of the country by doing all the good things in the budget—announcing salary increases and tax concessions and so forth—and keeping all the bad things for after April, 29. He then coined the phrase: “Vote now; pay later”. He said that was the party’s election slogan.

Let us then have a look at this budget. I cannot understand why that hon. member was getting so agitated. I see that he has left the House. After all, the hon. the Minister of Finance had only done some of the things and not nearly as extravagently as that party had asked him to do the year before when they were expecting a general election.

Let me say that it is true that in this budget there are some increased duties on luxuries such as cigarettes, drinks and jewellery. To make the hon. member happy I shall even concede that toothpaste becomes more expensive. The people might have voted on April, 29 but they did not pay in this budget. They would have paid, however—how they would have paid!—if the hon. the Minister had done what these hon. members wanted him to do in 1980. The country would have been bankrupt and we would have been taxed out of our mind to keep it afloat. What happened? There were no increases in income or sales tax, not even in the loan levy. That is what happened. We would have been taxed out of our minds if we had taken the Opposition’s advice. That would certainly have been very popular, but not very responsible.

Other things were said in this debate by the Opposition which I find extremely irresponsible, such as the way that side of the House perceived South Africa and White South Africans in general. It screams from their headlines, from their speeches and from their letters to editors. Those people are always fighting this, slamming that, lashing out at this and are always anguished, disgusted, dismayed, shocked and irate. If one had listened to the hon. member for Houghton in this House yesterday one would have heard all those extravagant adjectives and many more. That is the picture that they paint of White South Africans, the majority of whom support this party. I know these people as friendly, easy-going, generous and hospitable people who have done more or tried to do more than many others for Black people and people less developed and privileged than they. Where else in the world has the historic gap between the First and the Third World closed more rapidly than in South Africa in terms of per capita income, health services, education and in every other sector of human endeavour? I do not perceive those friendly White South Africans as oppressive, selfish and racist bigots who would condone a Government that commits offences before God, as the hon. member for Pinelands would have the world believe, or who would condone a Government with a Prime Minister and a Cabinet that should be banned, as the hon. member for Pinelands would have this country believe, or who would condone a Government that pursues policies that are not compatible with Christian principles, as the former Senator Eric Winchester would have his electorate believe in Natal. No, the problems of South Africa, which are many and difficult and which, surely, we all want solved, will not be solved by hurling invective at your own kind or by denegrating a Government that is trying its best to solve the problems that are vexing and difficult in this complex society of ours.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity the hon. member for Benoni did not check his facts before he launched an attack in this House on the hon. member for Houghton and others on this side of the House. What actually happened was that a service was held in a church adjoining Parliament during the lunch hour. It was decided to hand over a petition to the hon. the Minister of Police. The people moved towards Parliament, and the petition was handed over to the Minister there.

May I ask a question?

No, remain seated and listen to the facts first. The hon. the Minister of Police was there and the people handed over a petition to him. The fact of the matter is that the hon. member for Houghton and other members of this party asked the people to disperse because it was illegal to march on Parliament. The hon. member for Houghton and other members of this party made an appeal to the people to disperse. Consequently, this is contrary to what the hon. member for Benoni alleged here. Our problem with the Government speakers is that they are always wrong and they never check their facts. They usually do not know what they are talking about.

[Inaudible.]

No, come on now; that hon. Minister …

You were afraid to reply to a question of mine.

I shall reply to any question, but I only have a few minutes in which to speak.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that expression, namely that the hon. member is afraid to reply to a question.

I withdraw the word “afraid”.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw the expression in its entirety.

I withdraw it, Sir.

I did not have time to speak to the hon. the Minister, but now that he is bobbing up and down and making so much noise, I just want to say that he denied vehemently the other day that the Government had held back the increase in food prices until after the election. But an authoratitive spokesman of the S.A. Agricultural Union, a certain Mr. Johan Lubbe Willemse, said—we must of course believe Mr. Willemse rather than accept the word of politicians in this matter—

This was just before the election—

Consequently it is quite clear that the Government deliberately deceived the public of South Africa by not announcing the increased food prices prior to the election, but leaving it until after the election.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: My integrity is being impugned. Yesterday I said here in this House …

You may not make a speech.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I gave my word that the price increases had not been held back …

Order! You must put a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that the hon. member must accept my word. I said here yesterday that it was not the case, and I want to know whether he accepts my word or not. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: Is the hon. member permitted to say that the hon. the Minister deliberately misled the House, despite the fact … [Interjections.]

Order!

… despite the fact that the hon. the Minister gave this House the personal assurance yesterday that this was not the case?

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston said that the Government misled the public.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the word “Government” and say that the National Party deliberately misled the public of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I have very little time. I have already proved that the hon. member for Benoni does not know what he is talking about. We have also proved that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries does not know what he is talking about. The other day, when we asked the hon. member for Maitland how many houses the Government had built during the past year in Soweto, he did not know the answer. Afterwards, though, he said it was 108 000 houses. He does not know what he is talking about either.

You asked how many houses there were.

We asked how many had been built during the past year. The hon. member can look it up in Hansard if he likes. [Interjections.]

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

No, the hon. member may not, my time is too limited.

How many houses are there in Mitchells Plain?

How many squatters are there in the PFP?

Order!

We come now to the hon. member Mr. Aronson. Unfortunately he is a member who has no seat. He received a severe drubbing in Walmer.

Order! The hon. member may not cast a reflection on an hon. member by saying that he is an hon. member without a seat.

Sir, I did not say that. [Interjections.] I said unfortunately he has no seat.

What about Nic Olivier? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member Mr. Aronson would have had a seat if it had not been for the severe drubbing which he received at the hands of the present hon. member for Walmer. That hon. member also furnished this House with incorrect information. When he was referring to a speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands, and which was published in certain newspapers in South Africa because it was such a good speech, he omitted to furnish this House with all the facts. The hon. member for Pinelands said—

He did not say that it was the “logic” of the PFP, but of the Government—

This is in terms of the logic of the Government. Moreover, he stated very clearly—

Now the hon. the Prime Minister can heave a sigh of relief. He can stop worrying.

We shall give them a fair trial, Mr. Speaker, that is what we promise hon. members on the Government side.

You are a disgrace to this House. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether there is a single hon. member of the NP who is properly informed. There are several hon. members sitting on the opposite side who made completely incorrect statements here.

This brings me to the hon. member for Ventersdorp and what he said here. The hon. member for Ventersdorp is of course a person who recently lost the high position which he occupied in the maize producer’s organization. Fortunately those people then established …

Now you are being completely absurd.

… those people then kicked him out as a result of certain reasons, which he will not of course mention. Something else he did not mention when he was discussing the subsidies on foodstuffs, on maize, bread, etc., was that the Government, by way of the Department of Defence, spent R56 million of the taxpayers’ money in an irregular way, with the knowledge and the privity of the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was still Minister of Defence, on the old Department of Information via the Defence Fund. This was a department which committed offences, which committed malpractices, which established a newspaper …

Now you are wallowing in the mud again.

… which established a newspaper in secret to promote the cause of the NP in South Africa and to attack the Opposition. This was a department which committed corrupt practices in many other underhand ways, corruption at home and abroad in the name of South Africa. That was what that department did.

Order! Is the hon. member for Bryanston alleging that the hon. the Prime Minister did those things?

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the hon. the Prime Minister did them.

You are too afraid to say that. You do not have the courage to say that. [Interjections.]

I did not say that the hon. the Prime Minister …

Order! I appeal to the hon. member for Bryanston please to moderate his language.

Mr. Speaker, this is the most moderate language I can use. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Bryanston said that the hon. the Prime Minister, when he was still Minister of Defence, knew about these things. The hon. member also said that it was done in an underhand way. I consider that to be a direct reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister.

Order! I asked the hon. member whether he intended it to be a reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister. He said that that was not the case. Consequently I must accept his word. The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order: The hon. member for Bryanston said that the hon. the Prime Minister knew about these things. If the hon. the Prime Minister knew about them, surely they must have taken place deliberately and with his knowledge. Consequently I think the statement made by the hon. member for Bryanston was a direct reflection on the hon. the Prime Minister.

Order! The hon. member for Bryanston may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I never alleged that the hon. the Prime Minister played any part in corruption. [Interjections.] I can give him that assurance. It is not because I am afraid of him. In any case I am not to be frightened by trifles.

You need not think that you frighten me either.

With this headlong stampede of the hon. members of the NP in a right-wing direction, which is the result of the progress made by the HNP during the last election, an entirely new spirit has begun to move in the ranks of the NP. Speakers on the Government side have caused disillusionment and confusion, not only in this House, but also beyond this House—among academics, among Black people, among their own so-called verligte voters, and in the outside world.

Just look at the verligte members of the NP. Actually one can call them the shrivelled verligtes today. Last year, and earlier this year, they had such high hopes, such great expectations—there sits the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism for example. There were many promises and they said that there were going to be changes. But as a result of this movement to the right, this stampede to the right, there is little left today of the verligte expectations of the past. It was in fact the speech made by the hon. member for Meyerton which in my opinion was the most interesting speech of the entire debate. He said the following, and he said it in a very cordial way: “Look, friends—and he was talking to his own caucus, to his right-wing in the caucus and to the right-wing people outside—you thought the hon. the Prime Minister was a lost man and that he was now going to move in a leftist-reformist direction. That is not true. The lost son has returned.” They are now going to kill a fatted calf. He did not say that, but I assume that that is still going to happen. He then quoted certain carefully selected paragraphs from the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister with emphasis to demonstrate that the hon. the Prime Minister was not nearly the so-called reformer that certain people in the Government and others had alleged him to be. He was a person who still stood squarely behind the policy of apartheid; consequently they need not be concerned. If there is one thing which has been as plain as pikestaff throughout this entire debate, it is the fact that NP unity and the preservation of power is at any and every price, come hell or high water, the highest and now the only priority of this Government. [Interjections.] Yes, there was a time when the Government had begun to move outwards and when they began to boast of change. Then, unfortunately the hon. the Prime Minister called an election. It was a terrible mistake which he made, for by doing so he then gave the HNP an opportunity to demonstrate that it was making progress. And when the HNP had demonstrated that they were in fact making progress among the supporters of the NP, the NP made an immediate about-face and returned to the old ways of apartheid.

The broader interests of South Africa and all its people were summarily shelved. This Government is now deeming it expedient to alter the motto of General Hertzog and to say that this issue of South Africa first no longer serves any purpose. From now on it is the NP first, and South Africa second. As long as the desire for uniformity and the lust for power of the NP has to be satisfied as the first priority, we can forget about any changes emerging from the ranks of that party. Unfortunately this is true. What are the consequences of that fact for South Africa? The consequences are that justice is being destroyed, democracy demolished wherever it exists, and communism furthered. [Interjections.] Everyone who is advocating justice for the non-White groups in South Africa is being described as communists by the Government and in that way the cause of communism is being furthered. Because the Blacks in South Africa are, in respect of their rights and socio-economic existence in this country, being treated in exactly the same way as the people in communistic countries, communism is being furthered. For example the Blacks may not own land or participate in the democratic processes of their country. They may not have recourse to the same laws as those to which the Whites have recourse, and as a result of all these things the cause of communism in South Africa is being furthered.

The hon. member for Randfontein discussed religious freedom. It is true that we have religious freedom in South Africa, but do we have Christian freedom in South Africa? Can Christian freedom exist in a country where a policy such as apartheid is being applied? [Interjections.] Can Christian freedom exist in a country where a person needs a permit to live with his wife and children? Can there be Christian freedom in a country where a Black man and a White woman may not marry? In South Africa we have the Mixed Marriages Act. Is that Christian freedom? Can there be Christian freedom in a country where 15 million of its inhabitants, simply because they are Black, have been arrested during the past 10 to 15 years in terms of laws which are applicable exclusively to Black people?

You are disgracing the name Van Rensburg.

Can we preserve Christian freedom in such a country?

Prof. Gerrit Olivier of the University of Pretoria said the following—

He went on to say—

He explained this as follows—

The conduct of this Government, its statements and its obdurate refusal to accept and implement change, is one of the causes of our heading for revolution in South Africa. When the hon. the Prime Minister said that we must change or die, he was 100% correct. He spelt it out clearly, briefly and succinctly: We must change or die. But where is the change? What has become of it? What has become of the man’s courage? Why cannot the hon. the Prime Minister now come forward with his changes? Does he want us to die as a result of his inability to bring about change in South Africa? This session is to continue for another few weeks and we are now making an appeal to the hon. the Prime Minister to give South Africa an indication—I am referring now to the Black man and the White man, to all the people outside …

One thing is certain: You have not changed yet; you are still on the low level you have always been on.

… please give us an indication that there are changes on the way, but do not do what has been done during the past three weeks. During the past three weeks all expectations have been destroyed and in South Africa no hope remains of any change still to come. As a result of the inability of the Government, and because the hon. the Prime Minister has failed to stick to his guns and to do what he said he was going to do, the possibility of violence and revolution is staring the people of South Africa in the face.

Mr. Speaker, we have once again reached the end of a long budget debate, a debate of 20 hours in which approximately 60 hon. members took part. The debate was characterized by the large number of maiden speeches to which we have listened, and at this point I wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have taken their places in this House for the first time for their contributions. I greatly appreciate them. I think it is only right for me to say, having listened to those hon. members, that I am very sure that they will be an asset to this House.

I should also like to react to a few questions put to me concerning certain aspects of policy, for example estate duty and the increase in excise duty on fortified wines, as well as one or two other issues. Then, too, I wish to deal with certain statements and arguments by the Opposition parties. I should very much have liked to start on that today, but something extremely important and serious has taken place here in Cape Town this afternoon and I should like to refer to it.

†Time and again, especially in the last year or two or three, grave concern has been expressed by hon. members on this side of the House, and indeed outside this House by many responsible people, about what the real philosophy or approach to South Africa’s problems is on the part of the official Opposition.

Now what do you mean by that?

Exactly what I say.

That is just a smear campaign.

Grave concern has been expressed about the fact that the PFP is placing undue emphasis on extra-parliamentary activities. This has been said many times, and it has been said by people whom one cannot ignore.

Today there was, I understand, an incident near Parliament which I think must be brought to the attention of the House. The hon. member for Bryanston has just said that there was a church service in St. George’s Cathedral. He said it was a “service” which was held. I have no reason to say that there was not a service in St. George’s Cathedral, but I am informed, on excellent authority, that after that service a large number of people moved towards Parliament and had to be stopped by the S.A. Police. If that was only a church service, how is it possible that a number of huge posters were carried by these marchers. Let me hold up an example of such a poster, which, I am informed on good authority, was carried by a student of the University of Cape Town. The poster reads: “Our Demand: Freedom Charter.” Is this not the language of the ANC?

Have you read the Freedom Charter?

I repeat: Is this not the language of the ANC? [Interjections.] This is a matter of the gravest importance, and that Opposition party is going to have to account to the country for its part in this affair. [Interjections.] At one time this afternoon there were only eight members of the official Opposition in this House, and for quite a while there were only nine. Where were all the others?

Having lunch.

Where were they? [Interjections.] There is something I should like to put to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on the supposition that it is true that there is a ban on all open-air meetings, except for certain sports activities. I quote from the Government Gazette of 27 March 1981—

1. (1) of a bona fide sporting nature; or
2. (2) taking place wholly and for as long as they last within the walls of a building; or
3. (3) at any time expressly authorized by me or the magistrate of the district concerned.

*It was signed on 24 March 1981.

In the Kremlin or where?

I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether any hon. member of the Opposition took part in that march from outside the cathedral in the direction of Parliament. If so, I wish to know whether that was a legal action. What is more, it goes further than that. I am under the impression that there is an Act which stipulates that no demonstration shall take place in the vicinity of Parliament. What is the situation in that respect as regards that party and hon. members of that party? That is the second point. [Interjections.]

†I am asking questions, and the country is going to demand an answer to each one. [Interjections.] We are now coming to the parting of the ways in this country. This cannot go on.

Why don’t you ask the Minister of Police?

This great country cannot be absolutely prostituted by this type of activity. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether he dissociates himself from what has happened today and which, according to my information, also involves members of his party. Does he dissociate himself from that or not? The hon. leader need only reply “yes” or “no”.

I think you are actually quite disgusting. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am afraid this side of the House will not be deflected by this type of wild accusation.

The wild accusations were made by you. [Interjections.]

I am referring to the wild accusation of the hon. leader who says I am disgusting. The hon. leader must just answer my question.

Come outside and say it in public. [Interjections.]

Order!

I have been asking questions.

Loaded questions!

I asked whether the hon. member for Houghton was involved in the movement from the cathedral towards Parliament.

No.

Was the hon. member not involved?

No, I was not.

[Inaudible.]

I think the hon. member for Constantia must keep very quiet. I had more trouble with the hon. member for Constantia at the University of Natal than with any other student I ever knew. [Interjections.] Subversive activities! [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The statement made by the hon. the Minister was that he had more trouble with the hon. member for Constantia at the University than with any other student and then added “subversive activities”. In other words, the hon. the Minister is accusing the hon. member for Constantia of subversive activities. I ask you to ask the hon. the Minister to withdraw it.

Order! Did the hon. the Minister accuse the hon. member for Constantia of subversive activities?

I said that, Sir.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that statement.

Sir, I have sufficient respect for you and for the Chair to withdraw it, but I can say it in another way. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw it unconditionally.

Yes, I do that. When I said “in another way”, I was referring to outside the House. Before the hon. the Leader of the Opposition becomes too excited let me say that the hon. the Prime Minister put certain questions to the hon. member for Sandton across the floor of the House. The hon. member for Sandton sent the hon. the Prime Minister a note, which the hon. the Prime Minister has handed to me.

It is a private note.

No, it is not a private note. There is nothing private about it. There is not even an address on it to the Prime Minister. [Interjections.] This note was handed to the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Prime Minister, I think quite correctly because this is a matter of great public interest, has passed it on to me. It is signed by Dave Dalling and it says this—

That is right.

This is supposed to be a church service! [Interjections.] Protesters! The hon. member for Houghton told me that she had nothing to do with it.

I said “not in the grounds of Parliament”.

I asked the hon. member for Houghton if she was involved in that movement of people from the cathedral …

And I said “No”.

… in the direction of Parliament. [Interjections.] But the hon. member for Sandton says here that the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens were there …

Of course we were! But not marching.

… talking to the protesters. [Interjections.] Talking to the protesters, Mr. Speaker!

Ask the Minister of Police what they were doing there. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, if I could make myself heard for a moment I should like to proceed. You see, Sir, we have had during this debate over this week an outraged reaction …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. the Minister but he should have read the entire note.

Very well, I shall do so. I shall do so with pleasure. It goes on to say—

Why is “marched” put in inverted commas? [Interjections.] So they were with protesters but they did not “march”! What did they do then? [Interjections.] How did they move? Did they float or did they fly? [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Sandton goes on to say in his note—

Mr. Speaker, we shall confirm many things during the course of the next few hours and days. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens entitled to say that the hon. the Minister is a “scandalmonger”?

Yes, he is an old woman!

Order! The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Speaker, the point that I want to draw to the attention of this House is that for virtually the entire past week there has been a feeling of great outrage on the part of the official Opposition whenever anybody on this side of the House has answered the venemous and, I think, unjustified attacks made on this side of the House and on my hon. colleague the hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development and his Deputy Ministers in regard to the situation at Nyanga. Those hon. members have shown great outrage.

I want to suggest that what has happened here this afternoon is the culmination of the campaign in which the official Opposition has been engaged in regard to Nyanga ever since it started. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton must not be so hysterical; she must be quite calm …

I am calm.

… because she will have to answer many questions from now on. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, with respect, must answer the simple question whether or not he dissociates himself with what has happened outside this Parliament in St. Georges Street this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Sir, I thank you for the opportunity to have said these few words. I think I shall leave the matter of replying to the other issues raised in the debate until Monday, and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

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

I just want to point out that during the Second Reading debate an objection was raised to a guidance and placement centre being established in respect of any specified category of workseeker. As I then undertook to do, I therefore move that the clause be amended as suggested in the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for the amendment, but there is a further problem. If one removes the word “category” entirely, it means that if it should perhaps be deemed necessary to create a placement centre for a category of workers —not a racial category or an ethnic category, but a category of workers, for example welders, miners or whatever—the legislation does not make provision for this. I nonetheless assume that this may still be done in terms of the provisions of clause 2.

However, I propose that the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, and which I now move as follows, be accepted—

In my opinion, if the amendment is agreed on, both requirements will be met. It will mean that the Minister can still create placement centres or centres for certain categories of worker, but that he cannot create a centre of this nature for a specific race or ethnic group. He can still continue where necessary or desirable to create placement or guidance centres for a specific category of worker. This will however not be possible for a racial or ethnic category.

Mr. Chairman, I considered the matter very carefully. As a matter of fact, before the hon. member for Bryanston moved an amendment, I explained to this House what I meant. After due consideration I have decided that this will be the most convenient. I cannot agree to his amendment. In any case, we stated categorically, in the debate as well, that from an administrative viewpoint it should be made as easy as possible for the department. For this reason I wish to move that my amendment be agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I merely wish to say that half a loaf is better than no bread. Under the circumstances, with leave of the Committee, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Manpower agreed to.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. E. J. van Rensburg, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

I shall be accommodating here. This House has heard the argument of the hon. member for Durban North in this connection. Having discussed the matter with the hon. member, I am in agreement with him.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the hon. member for Durban North I should like to apologize for his absence. Unfortunately he has another engagement. On his behalf and also on behalf of the hon. members of my party I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for accepting the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Durban North. We shall support it. As the hon. the Minister has seen fit to move this amendment, I shall not be moving the amendments which stands in my colleague’s name.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any objections to this clause. I just have a suggestion that I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. The provisions of this clause are that the employer should, when he engages a workseeker, notify the designated officer of certain particulars. In clause 5 one will find that the workseeker is presented with a registration card which contains certain information and which has to be returned to the designated officer when such workseeker obtains employment. The suggestion that I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that the information contained in clause 5 and the information contained in clause 6 can—I submit—in fact be included in one document with, on the one side, the information the employee is responsible for and, on the other side, the information the employer is responsible for. When an employee obtains employment the employer can complete both sides of the document and send it back to the designated officer. In so doing the provisions of both clause 5 and clause 6 will be achieved. It is just a suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I shall consider the proposal in due course.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Durban North on the Order Paper, as follows—

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 19:

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

1. (1) On page 16, in line 8, to omit “5(3),”.
2. (2) On page 16, in line 11, to omit “(8)” and to substitute “(9)”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

1. (1) On page 4, in line 4, to omit “and subject to such conditions as he” and to substitute:

1. (2) on page 6, in line 17, after “(Act No. 57 of 1968)”, to insert:

1. (a) on behalf of the State;
2. (b) by or on behalf of—
   1. (i) the Armaments Corporation of South Africa, Limited, established by section 2 of the Armaments Development and Production Act, 1968, or any undertaking or company established or promoted by the said corporation, or any member, director, employee or agent of that corporation or any such undertaking or company;
   2. (ii) any person in his capacity as an officer or employee of the State;
   3. (iii) any person for the purposes of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No. 44 of 1957); or
   4. (iv) any person who is entitled by virtue of the Arms and Ammunition Act, 1969 (Act No. 75 of 1969), to possess the armaments concerned or to have the armaments concerned in his custody.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister probably goes most of the way towards meeting the objections we raised during the Second Reading debate. The hon. the Minister’s amendment does certainly provide for the Minister to delegate his authority in certain instances in respect of people who are going to carry armaments or arms in an aircraft. It also purports, as I read it, to make provision for a person who is a bona fide carrier of a fire-arm. I presume that that refers to a licensed fire-arm. I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that this is in fact what the amendment means. I am referring to paragraph (2)(b)(iv) of the hon. the Minister’s amendment which reads—

Does this in fact cover the instance I cited during the Second Reading debate, namely that of the person perhaps going on a hunting trip in a private aircraft and wanting to carry his own rifle and ammunition with him or that of a private person carrying a similar weapon? If that is the effect of the hon. the Minister’s amendment, then it certainly meets that particular objection I raised during the Second Reading debate. I should like the hon. the Minister to confirm that.

Mr. Chairman, now that we have the hon. the Minister on the right track with the signal on “Go”, we can deal with the amendment rather than the clause as contained in the Bill.

This amendment meets the objections we had in that it provides for the delegation of authority. I still feel it might have been more convenient for administration purposes if the hon. the Minister had provided for regulations to be prescribed, because he will now have to come back to the House if he finds that the detailed conditions contained in the Bill do not cover all the situations that can arise. It does however cover those which can be foreseen, except for one, which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. It has to do with the proposed subparagraph (iv) of the amendment which is the affected one as it deals with people such as those referred to by the hon. member for Berea, people who go hunting and who take their rifles with them. Those would obviously be registered and licensed weapons and therefore legal in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act. I have some doubt about whether the case of a foreign visitor who enters the country, on a hunting safari for instance—which is fast becoming a very popular form of tourism in South Africa—would in fact be covered by this stipulation. They would certainly not fall under the provisions as contained in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii). Their weapons would not be registered in terms of the Arms and Ammunition Act. They would be allowed into the country but their weapons would be licensed in the country of origin of the particular tourists. I believe the hon. the Minister will find that there is some problem here, which could be covered, of course, by the granting of a written certificate at the airports. Then, however, he will be creating more administrative work. There will be a further delay in effecting clearance of people arriving at national airports. As I see it, however, there will be no alternative because they will not be covered by the provisions of subparagraph (iv), which is clearly designed to meet the situation of the South African who has a private fire-arm, whether it be a sporting rifle or a pistol for his own defence. Such a man will be covered, but I still believe there is a gap and that the hon. the Minister is creating additional administrative work, additional delays, additional paper-work and red tape, which should not be necessary, because a person who enters the country with fire-arms in his possession obviously has those fire-arms cleared by the authorities at the airport and is therefore entitled to have them in his possession for the purposes stated by him. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter further.

Since our main objections to this clause have now been removed I should like to withdraw my amendment, with the permission of the Committee.

Amendment moved by Mr. W. V. Raw, with leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to accommodate all the proposals of both Opposition parties. I believe that everything they have asked for is now covered by the provisions of subsection (2)(b)(iv). There should be no further problem. Everything is still as it used to be in the past.

What about the foreign visitor?

Mr. Chairman, it is our aim to encourage foreign tourists to undertake game hunting excursions. I can therefore give the hon. member for Durban Point the assurance that it is not our intention to create more paper-work. I checked the whole matter with our legal advisers. They assured me that the position is still the same as it used to be in the past. The only thing that is changing now is that the powers of the Minister will be delegated, as is stipulated in subsection (1), which reads—

This whole matter has been fully discussed. I put it clearly that I did not want any additional administrative work or red tape to be created in respect of people undertaking hunting trips in order to shoot pheasant or rooibok or whatever other game.

*I can assure the hon. member for Durban Point that in practice there will be no delays or further problems. Our object with this Amendment Bill, as I have in fact explained in my Second Reading speech, is to clamp down on people who convey armaments in aircraft illegally and who want to sabotage our country. However, we shall not restrict a person who comes to this country in order to shoot game. The provisions of the legislation remain the same as in the past.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the intention of the hon. the Minister. However, my argument is that the amendment moved by him does not cover his intentions. I should like to refer him to the proposed new section 15A(1), which reads—

Now the hon. the Minister is merely adding a delegation of powers to this. Yet that delegation is still limited by the fact that a person is required to obtain written permission. Therefore the person to whom he delegates his powers will have to issue a written permit for each fire-arm brought into the country by a visitor for hunting purposes. Consequently we shall have additional work. There will be additional delays as well. The licence number, as well as all other particulars in respect of each fire-arm will have to be written down somewhere on paper by the owner of the fire-arm and signed by an official. Visitors are not covered in the same way as South African citizens. I refer again to subparagraph (iv). It covers a South African, because his arms are covered by the current inland legislation, but the arms of the foreigner, whom we must encourage to visit us, are not covered because they have not been licenced in South Africa. All I am asking is that while we are dealing with this we should make provision for those visitors, otherwise written permission will have to be granted for each rifle brought into the country for those purposes.

Mr. Chairman, that is already the case. A person who boards in New York with a rifle must now have it cleared by the SAL too. He has to fill in a form and state the number of the rifle. When landing at Jan Smuts Airport he merely obtains the permission and there is nothing illegal about it. He merely obtains written permission from the delegated official at Jan Smuts Airport so that he may go hunting in the “bundu”. I cannot envisage any delay. I have tried to accommodate the Opposition with this amendment, but, so help me, it seems they are not yet satisfied.

We merely wish to be of assistance.

Amendments moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have no argument with the principle of the Bill. As we said at Second Reading, we feel that South Africa should be protected and should be entitled to trade successfully without unreasonable competition from foreigners. Of course, for those people who are such keen supporters of a free-enterprise economy that is not a strictly consistent position to take. We are, however, concerned that South Africans who have been denied their South African citizenship by an arbitrary act of the Government should be able to carry on trading. Although the hon. the Minister’s amendments are certainly an improvement, and from our side we welcome that improvement, we …

It was our amendment that he pinched.

The hon. member for Durban Point should realize that it is important that we all work together to build a better South Africa. If he works hard to make a better Minister of the Minister of Transport Affairs he should be gratified. The amendments that I intend moving are an attempt to set out the position as we see it in South Africa, where this citizenship question is something we observe affecting people every day. Indeed there are Transkeians trading in South Africa running their own transport businesses and I am sure that, as the hon. the Minister said in the Second Reading, we do not want to stop them trading. There are Venda citizens who live in Ciawelo, Soweto and who perhaps want to run a transport business. There is the example of Sun City, which has hotels in Bophuthatswana, in the Republic and in other parts of Southern Africa. They may well want to move goods from one State to another. It is for this reason that I have seen fit to suggest certain amendments which, I accept, are somewhat inelegant but which do, I believe, achieve the purpose which I think the hon. the Minister also seeks to achieve. I therefore move the amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for having moved the amendment printed in his name which is identical to the amendment which stands in my name and which reads as follows—

I am very pleased that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to concede that point to us, and I shall therefore withdraw my amendment.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett, with leave, withdrawn.

In regard to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North’s amendments, I should like to refer him to an agreement entered into between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Transkei relating to the lawful transportation of persons or goods by motor vehicle, published in the Government Gazette of 22 October 1976, which reads, inter alia, as follows—

Section 2 of the agreement deals with the converse in regard to Transkei. It would appear from this that there are agreements between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of Transkei and, because of this, with the other states of Venda and Bophuthatswana, I would assume. We in these benches therefore feel that we would like more clarification on this. However, we are led to believe at the present time that these agreements do exist and for that reason we cannot support the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. I should like to put it to him that if we were to allow Transkeian, Venda and Bophuthatswana citizens to operate in South Africa under the Bill before us, would it automatically follow that South African citizens or anyone domiciled here would be permitted to operate in a similar manner within Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda? This is something that I would doubt but maybe the hon. the Minister could give us some clarification on this.

Mr. Chairman, I have a slight problem with the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister and the amendment which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has just withdrawn, have more or less the same impact as the third amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The third amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North refers to line 15 of the Bill. This is the same aspect of the Bill which the amendment of the hon. the Minister as well as that of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti referred to. However, the amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North go much further. I should like to address the House on the first two amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Order! I regret that I am unable to accept amendments (1), (2), (4) and (5) moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North as they are in conflict with a principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Thank you. This solves my problem to a great extent. What remains therefore is the last three amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. In order to see these three amendments in their correct perspective it is necessary to look at the clause as a whole. The first part, if I may refer to it in that manner, is concerned with paragraph (z)(i)(ii) and (iii). It refers to the vehicle involved, but this is not relevant since neither the amendment of the hon. the Minister nor the two amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, which have been ruled out of order, apply. This means that we are in fact dealing with what I should like to call the second part of the clause which reads—

Then we have the insertion in the hon. the Minister’s amendment: “domiciled in the Republic”. The clause further reads—

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North came forward with three amendments relating to this. The hon. member wanted this section to read—

However, it also has to be a company “actively carrying on business from a place situated in the Republic or an independent State which was formerly part of the Republic”. Once again I should have liked to object to these amendments, were it not for the fact that the hon. the Minister indicated in the Second Reading debate that he would be prepared to accept an amendment in this regard.

What is the object of these three amendments? All of them concern the conveyer, for although the first part refers to the vehicle, the second part refers to the conveyer. In terms of the amendments the conveyer should not only be a South African citizen or domiciled in the Republic but the hon. member proposed that it should include a person who is a citizen of an independent State which was formerly part of the Republic. I do not think the hon. member understands the problem we are faced with here. One of the problems which the hon. the Minister and the department are faced with is the fact that one should be able to identify vehicles. Should an offence occur one should be able to lay one’s hand on the address of a company or a person. That is what this is all about. If a vehicle is registered in a foreign country, for example an independent State such as Transkei or Bophuthatswana, it follows that the Department of Transport Affairs does not have at its disposal either the address of the place where the vehicle was registered or of the person who drove the vehicle or of the company that operates the transport business. That is why these amendments cannot be accepted, because they do not eliminate the problem. Such a transport operator need not register his vehicle in the Republic. If he registers the vehicle in Venda, Transkei or Bophuthatswana neither the Department of Transport Affairs nor the traffic departments will have any particulars at all as to where such person or such vehicle may be traced when an offence occurs. I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must accept and reconcile himself to it that in his amendment the hon. the Minister made the concession that persons who are at present working in transport concerns in South Africa are being allowed to continue to do so if they are domiciled in the Republic of South Africa. But we cannot go further and allow both registration and an address outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa as well. Therefore it will be a good and wise decision if the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North would withdraw the three remaining amendments as well.

Mr. Chairman, as an ordinary stock farmer I hesitate to address an advocate on his interpretation of this piece of legislation.

It would serve you well to keep that constantly in mind.

The way I understand it the registration of the vehicle is already covered, because the amendments I moved were ruled out of order. The way I understand it there is no problem as regards the tracing of the owner of a vehicle. If the vehicle was registered in the Republic surely there must be an address and a person who can be traced.

I do not accept the hon. member for Amanzimtoti’s interpretation of the regulation which he quoted from the Gazette. We do not want a division on this amendment, but we do want to emphasize—and we are going to have the dissenting vote of the official Opposition placed on record—that we are not happy about the fact that people who are South Africans, or who should actually be South Africans, but who have been deprived of their citizenship without their permission, and who are still living in the Republic, do not have the right to trade and operate a transport business. Even if they live in Butterworth or in Sibasa and they travel frequently, they should still be granted that opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Roodeplaat for having drawn our attention to the first two amendments of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

†The hon. member for Amanzimtoti was quite correct in saying that his amendment has been printed in my name. I think in that regard we can agree to agree. The hon. member referred to an agreement between Transkei and the Republic of South Africa. During the Second Reading debate I said that Transkei has a local road transportation board just as we have one. We come to an agreement with them that we shall register their people under our conditions in terms of an agreement.

*However, if we are going to do what has been proposed, to include a new State, this legislation will be null and void. The hon. member for Roodeplaat spelt this out clearly and emphasized the problems.

If I should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti to delete the words “a South African citizen” and substitute for them the words “domiciled in the Republic” it would mean that that person to whom the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North referred as being a person who has been deprived of his South African citizenship—in this connection of course I differ from the hon. member—could still register because he is domiciled here. I want the hon. Opposition to understand that our whole object with this legislation is to eliminate the anomalies which exist at present between our country and foreign countries and to put a spoke in the wheel of those people who now want to compete unfairly with our own Black people. We want to protect a certain group. Our Blacks come to us and complain that they now have to compete with other countries. They say that they are living in this country now, they have obtained a permit, they have one truck and now a man from another country with a registration in another country comes and conveys goods between Johannesburg and Durban at will. They are asking for protection in this regard. This is the whole object of this legislation.

For this reason I should like to thank the hon. member for Roodeplaat, my legal adviser, for pointing out these facts. I do not wish to repeat what he said but what he did say is the very object of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the hon. the Minister in his reply to the previous speeches made on this clause. His amendment is certainly an improvement on the clause as originally printed. However, as far as we are concerned, it simply just does not go far enough in meeting a particular situation relating to the independent States. I accept the fact that the problem the Administration had initially was to try to protect local operators from competition from outside States. I think as far as the intention is concerned, it was not aimed at States which were formerly part of South Africa but other States such as, perhaps, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and so forth from which the competition emanated. I think that was the intention when this amendment was first drafted. However, as I said during my Second Reading speech, I still believe that we are going to encounter difficulties in regard to operators who are going to carry goods and who are not domiciled in the Republic; they are not citizens of the Republic but are now citizens of independent States—one thinks in this regard of Transkei, Venda and Bophuthatswana. I think this is going to cause difficulties. I may mention some instances that may occur relating to, for example, the hotel industry in Bophuthatswana which may want to convey exempted goods into South Africa. They are not domiciled in South Africa, they are not registered in South Africa and this I think will produce difficulties.

It has been suggested, as in the case of Transkei, that there are agreements and that there may perhaps be agreements in respect of other independent States. The hon. the Minister has not indicated whether or not this is in fact the situation. However, we are dealing here with the person who conveys or carries goods and I think that this is a privilege. We are talking about exempted goods. The hon. the Minister mentioned foreign States not having these rights. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a provision that appears in each of the three Acts which this Parliament passed giving independence to Transkei, Bophuthatswana and Venda. In the Status of Venda Act of 1979 section 6(3) reads as follows—

This is the same sort of provision that appears in the Acts governing independence for Transkei and Bophuthatswana—

citizenship, to the extent that they would not lose any privileges or rights as I have just quoted. I think clearly this Bill does affect the rights and privileges of former South African citizens, who now find themselves resident in or are citizens of independent States, on an issue of this kind. We believe that this provision simply does not accommodate those people. For that reason, despite the fact that the hon. the Minister’s amendment is an improvement because domicile makes it a much easier situation, we still believe that the amendment does not go far enough. We still believe that this is going to cause difficulty in future.

Mr. Chairman, Bophuthatswana, Venda and Transkei are all creations of this Government. We have already said that we do not want to make it difficult for those people to have small business enterprises. I have already indicated that they can apply for a permit.

*If it were to happen that the hon. member is proved correct, we shall amend the legislation. The man in that country has to apply to his road transportation board for a permit. I can give hon. members the assurance that it is not at all our intention to handicap that kind of businessman; we want to encourage him instead. He applies for a permit and then we have control over him as we have the registration number of his vehicle, and so forth. I believe that the legislation will work in practice.

Amendment (3) moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh, negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, to omit the definition of “Black” from the definitions clause. There are subsequent amendments in other clauses which are consequential upon this amendment, and I think it would be advisable if the discussion of this clause could stand down until we have dealt with those clauses. Consequently I should like this clause to stand over.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to accepting this amendment to this clause, but it will cause me difficulties with regard to other clauses. I only mention this because then we shall have to revert to clause 1.

Does the hon. the Minister then have no objection to its being discussed later?

No, we shall then have to revert to this clause. I accept the amendment to clause 1.

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot do it in this way. The clause will have to stand over.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Agreed to.

Clause 2:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister will recall that during the Second Reading I raised some doubts that I have in my own mind as to exactly what is going to happen to the Railway Tender Board once this legislation is promulgated. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister that under the Railway Board Act, Act No. 73 of 1962, which will be repealed as a result of this legislation, section 3 provides for the setting up of a Railway Tender Board. Clause 4, which deals with the continuation of the South African Transport Services Board, which is in fact the old South African Railways and Harbours Board, makes no provision for the establishment of a Railways Tender Board, other than in subsection (6), and this is where I want clarity from the Minister. Subsection (6) states—

That is the Railway Board, now the South African Transport Services Board—

Does this mean that all the provisions which exist in the present Railway Board Act will apply in future? I am thinking here of the fact that the Minister, in terms of section 3 of the existing Railway Board Act, must set up a Railway Tender Board. I believe that the hon. the Minister must not be vague when he replies to my question. I want to know: Will he have a tender board in the future, operating in the same way as the Railway Tender Board operates at the present time? If so, will that board have the same independence and functions as it presently has? I should like the hon. the Minister to reply to that.

Mr. Chairman, it is not the intention here to alter anything. The position will remain as it was in the past.

*This clause is a repetition of section 2 of Act No. 73 of 1962. The hon. member may rest assured that personally I like the tender board system and will not alter it. The hon. member can be certain of that.

But where does it say so in the Bill?

This is just a repetition. In clause 5, too, it is stated that it is just a repetition.

It relates to the establishment of the tender board.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says things will go on as before, but this legislation calls for the repeal of the Railway Board Act. Therefore, in future there will be no reference in this legislation to the setting up of a railway tender board. I should like the hon. the Minister to remember exactly what the provisions of the existing Act are. When the existing Act was passed by the House, Parliament in fact gave the Minister instructions regarding tender board activities. I have a copy of the tender board regulations and instructions with me. We have been told that one of the main reasons for this legislation is to allow the General Manager more flexibility so that he can manage by instruction rather than by regulation. At the present time in terms of the tender board legislation the members of the tender board consist of people from the Federated Chamber of Industries, Assocom, the S.A. Bureau of Standards and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. In terms of the present tender board legislation these people have a certain degree of independence and are backed by the law. If there is any disagreement between the General Manager and the tender board about the acceptance of a tender, the instructions are quite clear. The General Manager has to motivate why he wants a certain tender to be accepted. If the tender board and the General Manager cannot come to any agreement, the matter is referred back to the Minister. I am afraid that, if this Bill goes through without any clarity on this, the Minister and the General Manager will be operating purely in terms of instructions.

There is a further thought I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. When drawing up a tender, the people concerned get a copy of the tender board regulations and instructions which are enforceable by law. Therefore, the tender applications and the successful tenders have to abide by these regulations according to the law. If this is not going to be the case in the future and people only submit tenders under instructions by the General Manager, instructions which are not enforceable by law, it will mean that all contracts and tenders will have to have written into them the provisions which at present are found in the tender board regulations and instructions. First of all this will be extremely costly because every contract will have to have these provisions written into it. I believe it is also going to create quite a lot of confusion.

I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister that the tender board regulations are not quite the same as the general Railway regulations and instructions. The tender board regulations concern the Railway Administration’s relationships with people who are tendering to perform certain duties for the Railways, and I believe that this should be made very clear indeed. In fact, I move as an amendment—

I submit this to the hon. the Minister for consideration, because I am rather concerned about this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the Auditor-General is keeping an eagle eye on these matters. Together with the Select Committee on Railways accounts he exercises all the necessary control over this matter. It is not the intention to change the tender board system.

Where is a reference to the tender board in this?

The tender board will remain as it is now.

But where is provision being made for it?

The Minister will in future give instructions to the General Manager of the Railways concerning the workings of the Tender Board. This is what the legal amendment amounts to. If the amendment of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti is only aimed at helping me to keep faithfully to the tender board system, I shall accept it. However, in my opinion it is unnecessary to insert it in this clause because no changes whatsoever are being effected to the tender board system.

Mr. Chairman, the question is not the bona fides of the hon. the Minister. That we accept. There is, however, a procedure for purchasing. We are producing now a new structure for transport services. We are replacing all the old legislation. This is now going to be the foundation, the Holy Bible, of running transport. It will be referred to for every decision. All we are asking is that this crucial aspect of the spending of millions upon millions of rands every year should be handled by way of the procedure with which the hon. the Minister agrees. He wants that procedure to be followed, and all we are asking is that provision should be made for him to make regulations in respect of the operation of the Tender Board. This is something which we believe is far better than giving an instruction, because an instruction has no legal force or effect, whereas regulations provide for how tenders shall be submitted, how they shall be handled, and regulations are enforceable by law because they are prescribed in terms of legislation. This is going to be the be-all and end-all of the whole administration of transport services. Why then does the hon. the Minister not want to provide for regulations for purchases through a tender board?

I can see no reason for it. He says he is going to do it, but he doesn’t want to put it into the Bill. If he is going to do it then, why do we not put it into the Bill? What is his objection to putting it in so that this can be done by regulation and not by instruction, which can be changed from day to day in a willy-nilly fashion? It may happen that a new Minister takes over who does not like the Tender Board and who can then merely wipe out previous decisions by giving new instructions. Regulations comprise a formal and recognized method providing for major activities to take place. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider our amendment and to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point and I are misunderstanding one another. This whole Bill, and clause 4 as a whole, have nothing to do with the tender board. Not a word is said about the tender board in this clause. The clause as a whole has nothing whatsoever to do with the tender board. This Bill seeks only to rectify certain matters. I have already referred to other provisions relating to the tender board. I have just received from my officials a copy of the old Railway Board Act. In general, the legislation under discussion concerns the continued existence of the South African Transport Services Board. It has nothing to do with the tender board. The tender board is not even dealt with in this Bill. Under the original Act the tender board continues to exist in an unaltered form. We are not changing the tender system.

In which Act is provision made for the tender board?

In Act No. 73 of 1962.

In the second schedule to the Bill provision is made for the whole of that Act to be repealed.

The only Act that is being repealed is the Railways and Harbours Acts Amendment Act, 1960.

But look at the second schedule of the Bill. It states therein that the whole of Act No. 73 of 1962 is being repealed.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point may address the Committee if he wishes to put his case.

I agree with the hon. member. I do not want to change anything. I have no intention of interfering with the tender board principle. However, clause 4 only concerns the continued existence of the S.A. Transport Services Board, the Commissioners.

Mr. Chairman, I agree that clause 4 concerns the establishment of the S.A. Transport Services Board. However, the Railway Board Act includes the section which sets up the establishment of the Tender Board. This is the responsibility of what was then the Railway Board and the Minister. However, I do not see it here in these provisions and this is what is causing me concern. The hon. the Minister says that the Tender Board will continue as before but I should just like to refer him to the Second Schedule on page 92 of the Bill which deals with Acts repealed. Under this Schedule we see that the Railway Board Act of 1962 is repealed. The extent of the repeal is the whole of the Act. Once that is repealed I cannot see where we shall have any law promulgated by this Parliament that is going to provide that a Tender Board should be established. As I have said to the hon. the Minister, if one does not have a Tender Board and Tender Board regulations established under the law, then every contract that is put out for tender will have to have all these regulations written into it because, at the present time, anybody tendering on a contract does so under these regulations and under the law. I can see a lot of confusion resulting from this and I can also see a lot of costs being involved in operating without Tender Board regulations and instructions set up under the law as it is at the present time.

Mr. Chairman, may I just read the amendment put forward by the Opposition? I agree with them and if it is acceptable, I shall accept it as such. Now that I read the amendment, I shall accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti but, as I understand it, it should come in under clause 5 and not under clause 4 which deals with the functions of the board and its relationship with the Minister. I do not want to intrude, but I think the more correct place for it to be inserted is under clause 5 as a new paragraph (k).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

The hon. member for Berea will understand that we agree that the amount must be increased. With inflation, devaluation and that kind of thing it is better to use those words, viz. “all expenditure exceeding a fixed minimum amount determined by the Minister from time to time”. I felt that we should make it R200 000 or R250 000. However, we are making it a minimum amount determined by the Minister from time to time. Otherwise we would have to introduce a legal amendment every five, six or seven years. Now we can say, once and for all, “a minimum amount”. At the moment I regard this as an amount of between R200 000 and R250 000, but next year, with 15% inflation, we shall increase the amount.

Mr. Chairman, I think I can accept the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. It follows the same trend of the amendment which I have placed on the Order Paper. Clearly, in view of the change in the value of money, the management of the Railways must have greater latitude than they were given in the original Act which states that “any amount exceeding R50 000” has to be referred to the Railway Board. The spirit in which the hon. the Minister has moved his amendment I think meets the case which we made in the Second Reading on behalf of this side of the House. I shall therefore not move my first amendment to clause 5.

I now move the following amendments to clause 5—

1. (1) On page 8, in line 11, to omit “diminution” and to substitute “reduction”;
2. (2) on page 8, in line 27, to omit “farms”

Amendment (1) is merely a question of language as, in my view, the substitution of the word “reduction” for the word “diminution” certainly makes for a better description of what is intended by the clause. As far as amendment (2) is concerned I should like to point out that the clause as printed at the present time reads, inter alia—

Clearly, Sir, in matters of this kind we are not only dealing with farms but with properties, and I think the word “properties” would more accurately describe what is intended by the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the amendment of the hon. member for Berea regarding the increase of the amount of R50 000 which he did not move as it has been replaced by an amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. I would advise the hon. the Minister to be a bit cautious about this one because one must bear in mind where this provision is usually used. For instance, it could be used to give the General Manager the power to increase the amount of certain contracts. It could be used as far as grants are concerned, for instance in regard to a grant to a university. It could be used in regard to ex gratia payments, for argument’s sake, in regard to a potato, a meat or a beef contract. There is a multitude of smaller transactions in regard to which the General Manager needs a certain amount of flexibility in order to settle the matter without having to come to the Railway Board all the time. I honestly believe, however, that the hon. the Minister should exercise some caution before he drastically increases this amount. I am thinking of items that have been dealt with in the past, for instance, land transactions, grants and unforeseen works, ex gratia payments and increases on estimates that have been approved by Parliament. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that these were problematical cases that arose in the past and I do believe that he and the Railway Board should keep a close watch on this. After all, we must leave some work for the Railway Board to do.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the hon. member’s amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the powers of the South African Transport Services. I am more specifically concerned with the subsections relating to property. There is a tendency in South Africa to overplay or underplay human rights, but one of the most important rights we have, in a free country, is the right to own property, and that is a fundamental human right. Any breaching of that right is therefore clearly a serious matter. That is why we have an Expropriation Act, but anyone, in any country in the world, also recognizes expropriation legislation as an assault on individual rights. I believe that this Government, and more specifically the Railways Administration—as do we on this side of the House—feels very strongly that the property rights of the individual are rights that should be strongly protected and that people should not be permitted to ride roughshod over them.

Do you not think we feel the same?

Well, in certain respects one might think so, but when the Government deals with other human rights—and human rights cannot be restricted willy-nilly—the Government does take those rights lightly, particularly if the people concerned do not happen to be members of the White race group. Then their human rights are not very important at all. In fact, those hon. members on that side of the House do not even want to give such people freehold rights and to allow them to gain access to the free-market economy. They tend to be very cavalier about the rights of people and have happily ridden roughshod all over them. In view of the Government’s background, we therefore have good reason to be somewhat suspicious. [Interjections.]

My first amendment is to ensure that the South African Transport Services cannot simply enter upon properties without respecting people’s rights. I do not know how many members of this committee have, in fact, read this Bill. Let me specifically refer to clause 9(6) which states that the South African Transport Services can enter upon any land, do surveys and take levels of the land, can dig or bore into the soil, can construct and maintain a measuring weir in any river or stream and all this sort of thing without any conditions about notice being given or conditions about compensation in the event of such action being taken. It is only later in the Bill, in clause 27—I know this is not the clause under discussion now, but it is relevant—that there is a provision allowing for compensation and for arbitration.

Clause 9(7) relates to pipelines and is the provision I have referred to as the Charles Henderson provision. It does, in fact, meet the necessary conditions, because whilst recognizing the national interest as overriding the right of individuals, it does at least protect the individual and give him some basic human rights. That is generally the background to the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper.

I now want to refer to clause 9(2). Here again we have the South African Transport Services taking upon themselves rights in relation to property, and once again I believe that this is a serious matter. I think the hon. the Minister must explain to us exactly why these powers are being taken and what the purpose of such powers would be.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage I should like to move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 12, in line 45, after “2,” to insert:

1. (2) on page 14, in line 18, to omit “Black”;
2. (3) on page 14, in line 22, to omit “a Black” and to substitute “an”;
3. (4) on page 16, in line 3, to omit all the words after the first “enter” up to and including “hours” in line 6 and to substitute:

The second amendment relates to the omission of the word “Black”. The discussion on clause 1 is being held over, but this subsection will not be affected in any sense. I believe that as it is the policy of the Government to move away from racial discrimination in every way possible and as the hon. the Minister of Manpower has set a good example for us in the early stages of the session, I put the amendment in that spirit. The third amendment is consequential. My fourth amendment refers to subsection (7) on page 16. It is again a matter of notice. Hon. members will notice that there is a quaint statement here, viz. that the South African Transport Services can enter upon one’s land, they can build weirs, drill holes, they can do what they like. According to the subsection they may not, however, enter into one’s house or garden without giving 24 hours’ notice. We believe that notice of at least seven days should be given, because if they give 24 hours’ notice and the family is having a wedding the next day, it might not be convenient. One would then at least have that come-back on the S.A. Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I am unable to accept the first amendment to clause 9. We have never had any difficulties with the legislation in the past and it has remained in its present form for 30 years. We foresee, too, that if we accept this amendment, it will be in conflict with what the S.A. Agricultural Union has requested. In practice it is creating no problems at the moment and therefore I cannot accept the amendment.

In his second amendment the hon. member moves that the word “Black” on page 14 in line 18, be deleted. I shall accept that. As far as the third amendment of the hon. member is concerned, I am prepared to replace “a Black” and to substitute “an”. As far as his fourth amendment is concerned, I cannot accept it. The provision of 24 hours is supported by the S.A. Agricultural Union and in practice it works quite well. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot accept that amendment by the hon. member.

I now move as an amendment—

If the word “Black” is deleted, the other words are already included in the Bill and therefore that is merely a repetition.

Mr. Chairman, I am not used to this hand grenade type of approach to amendments. As I have said, I am not a lawyer. I am just an old goat and cattle farmer. While my learned colleagues are examining the amendment, I should like to say how disappointed I am that the hon. the Minister seems to feel that he can continue to take powers to himself and his department, powers which are radical. The landowner has no right in law. For example, if the Railway Administration enters a man’s property to build a weir, and brings in a concrete mixer to do the reinforced concrete work for the weir and then brings in some bulldozers and so causes damage to his farm, there is no obligation laid down in terms of this legislation in terms of which compensation will have to be paid. In the same way, if they want, for example to erect telephone wires across a farmer’s land, and those wires run in front of a farmer’s house and he does not like it, he has no recourse to law. I think that this is a gross infringement of basic human rights. Mr. Chairman, we in this country have been trying to obtain better expropriation legislation in an effort to try to secure the rights of landowners. The clauses in this Bill to which I have moved amendments, simply compound that position. I am surprised at the hon. the Minister who is a reasonable man and a landowner himself, in that he does not appreciate the fact that a landowner should have some rights.

Order! I think the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister deals with the third amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. The hon. member’s second amendment stands on its own. The hon. the Minister has already intimated that he will accept the second amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Mr. Chairman, I was discussing the refusal of the hon. the Minister to accept my first amendment while my learned colleagues have been considering the hon. the Minister’s amendment to my third amendment. I am still not clear as to why it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to move this amendment. As I understand this, if he arrogates the right to deal with long-term leasehold or discharging any bond on a house acquired by an employee, whether that employee is black, pink or white, it does not really matter. I do not quite understand why the hon. the Minister feels it necessary to move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member’s problem was in regard to the word “Black”. He wanted the word “Black” removed. If we do this then we repeat certain words used in other provisions in this Bill. We could leave it as it is and omit the word “Black” but the legal advisers say that my amendment will make it more streamlined. The principle remains the same. I cannot see anything wrong in deleting those words because they then become unnecessary.

Mr. Chairman, …

Order! I regret to inform the hon. member that he has already had three opportunities to address the Committee on this particular clause.

Mr. Chairman, I find it rather difficult to understand the reasoning of the hon. the Minister in regard to his amendment. It seems at first glance to have the effect that Black employees can only obtain leasehold property but cannot own freehold properties. If the hon. the Minister omits the words “or of acquiring dwelling houses or erecting or improving dwelling houses or discharging any bond on a house acquired by a Black employee” as the hon. the Minister has suggested, we are then left with the situation where Black employees can only obtain long-term leasehold rights to land. Now we are retrogressing. We are taking away the right of Black employees to own land and we are limiting them to leasehold rights.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to say that that is not the intention. What we have here, is a repetition. We now have the 99 year-leasehold system and that is why we are prepared to alter the whole scheme in order to allow the Blacks to own their own houses. We also want to help them in building those houses. I cannot see anything wrong with it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to assist the hon. the Minister on behalf of my colleagues. In lines 14 and 15 provision is made for the issue of loans—

It therefore seems to me as if the hon. the Minister is essentially correct in the sense that if the word “Black” is removed, provision will indeed be made for the provision of loans in general to employees for the construction of buildings and to effect improvements. It therefore seems to me as if this is in order. I think I may suggest to my hon. colleagues that the amendment of the hon. the Minister is acceptable.

Why did you not enter the debate before? [Interjections.]

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh agreed to.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs agreed to and amendment (3) moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh dropped.

Amendment (4) moved by Mr. G. B. D. McIntosh negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I have a query which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. This clause concerns the construction of railways, harbours and harbour works. Subsection (1) provides—

On the other hand subsection (2) provides—

We believe that subsection (2) should in fact provide that every proposal for the construction and for the acquisition of any harbour or harbour works, or for any railway line should, before being submitted to Parliament, be considered by the South African Transport Services Board. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has left out the words “or acquisition” from subsection (2) which at the moment only provides for consideration by the Transport Services Board of a proposal for the construction but not the acquisition of any harbour or harbour works or of any line of railway? Should the Railways ever expect to acquire or buy a railway line, surely it should be submitted to the S.A. Transport Services Board for consideration before being submitted to Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, last week we had a Bill before this House dealing with a new railway line from Broodsnyersplaas to Middelburg. If we receive a request from people for a railway line the S.A. Transport Services Board investigates the whole matter. The board then makes a recommendation which is submitted to Parliament to get the permission of this House to build that railway line. I do not know what the hon. member’s problem is. I do not know why he wants to insert the words “or acquisition”. What will it alter? What is the hon. member’s problem? Will it take away any of the powers that we have at present? Will it affect the authority of Parliament to consider the proposed railway line? Can the hon. member explain to me what his problem with the word “acquisition” is? In what way will it alter the principle of the clause?

Mr. Chariman, let us assume that a private company has built a railway line. Coming from Natal, I can tell this House that there are quite a number of these lines in, for instance, the sugar industry. Let us assume that the Railways Administration proposes purchasing such a railway line. Subsection (2) provides that every proposal for the construction of any harbour or harbour works or of any line of railway shall, before being submitted to Parliament, be considered by the S.A. Transport Services Board. Surely, every proposal for the acquisition of any harbour or harbour works or of any line of railway should also, before being submitted to Parliament, be considered by the S.A. Transport Services Board. The way I see the position at the moment is that the Railways Administration can acquire a railway line without such proposed purchase first being submitted to the Transport Services Board.

Mr. Chairman, in practice the matter works this way. Suppose that a railway line has been completed, that all the work has been finalized and that the Act which deals with the construction of that railway line stipulates that that railway line shall become the property of the S.A. Railways. Does the hon. member now wish the S.A. Transport Services Board to have to carry out another inspection? An inspection of that nature cannot make an iota of difference to the whole matter. The construction of the line has been completed. Of what use would an inspection be? It becomes the property of the S.A. Railways. Now take the case of the Natal Portland Cement Company which wants to build a railway line in Natal. There is a whole story attached to this matter. The S.A. Transport Services Board went to investigate the route. I myself went to examine it. Since the construction of the railway line has now been completed at the expense of the Natal Portland Cement Company and must become the property of the S.A. Railways in terms of the Railway Construction Act, what is the point of instructing the S.A. Transport Services Board to carry out another inspection? It simply does not work that way in practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13:

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

This clause relates to people who alter a free pass or a ticket and it makes provisions for certain penalties. It seems to me that, if a penalty is to be imposed on a person who obtains by false pretences or other fraudulent means or who forges or alters any ticket, that penalty should be a balanced one. The penalty provided for is not a balanced one because in the first place the clause reads—

I think that that is totally out of proportion for the offence concerned. I think that the period of imprisonment is also out of proportion to the monetary penalty. I believe that the substitution of “three months” would result in a far more appropriate period of imprisonment in this case.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member’s problem concerns the fine of R200 as compared with the period of imprisonment of one year, he should propose that the penalty should be R500 or imprisonment for a year.

That is unfair.

Most people travelling by train pay for their tickets, but a percentage of them are not prepared to pay.

*They are cheating, believe me. The result is that the people who conscientiously buy their tickets have to carry the Railways. It is a small percentage we want to get at. In order to be realistic we inserted the word “not exceeding”. The court will decide, but the words “not exceeding” have been included. In practice, the maximum penalties will seldom be imposed. However, there are cases where this will happen. If the hon. member wants to rectify this, he should increase the R200 to R500. Unfortunately I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14:

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

This provision relates to the transfer of a ticket or free pass being prohibited and in part reads as follows—

I am trying to see what the particular problem is which the Administration is trying to contend with here. Hence my amendment. If I go to the Cape Town railway station and buy a ticket to catch a train to Muizenberg, I cannot see that there can be any objection to my giving the ticket to anybody else. Surely this is not what is intended. I think that, if one inserts that this applies to cases where accommodation has been reserved, it will make it much clearer. In that event I can see the problem as far as the Administration is concerned. The mere parting with the possession of a ticket one has bought does not seem to me to be sufficient reason to occasion an offence, as this clause seems to provide at the present time. If it is related to the reservation of a seat or a place on a train, I can see that there might well be merit in it, but as the clause stands at the present time, it does not seem to be terribly wrong if one simply buys a ticket and passes it on to someone else. I do not see what the hon. the Minister is getting at here.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea has made a very good point here. I think we have to look at the future. I believe the Railways Administration, at the present time, is investigating ways and means of speeding up the whole acquisition of tickets. Instead of still following the old method of selling tickets to passengers over a counter, it seems that they are now planning to install ticket vending machines for the sale of tickets. In such a case this whole thing becomes somewhat ridiculous. Say, for instance, a father of five wants to buy five tickets. If one should then follow strictly to the letter of the law it would mean that each member of the family would have to buy his own ticket. I can see a good deal of merit in what the hon. member for Berea has proposed. Therefore we will be supporting him.

Mr. Chairman, we are at present reconsidering the whole matter of train tickets. I shall subsequently disclose all the findings and proposals in that respect to this hon. House. However, it does happen that on some trains up to 20% of the passengers travel without tickets. This is certainly irregular.

The hon. member asked what was wrong with a person purchasing a season ticket and then transferring it to someone else? I myself went to examine what was happening on trains. I saw one passenger passing his season ticket to other passengers. When the ticket examiner appears that season ticket moves from one person to another at lightning speed. It is even passed on through the train window. People make use of all kinds of methods to avoid paying their fares.

The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is quite correct. We shall come forward with new proposals. We are investigating the whole system of railway tickets de novo. Unfortunately I cannot accept that amendment now. The control officers of the Railways assure me that we have no choice but to adopt this provision in its present form and to implement it in practice.

Amendment negatived (official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 40:

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

This is again really a matter of language.

I accept that amendment.

The hon. the Minister says he accepts my amendment. Therefore, there is no need for me to say anything more.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41:

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to explain why he feels it is necessary to hang this sword of Damocles over the Durban Harbour Carrier certificate owners. It seems to me a particularly unfortunate sort of legislation to stipulate in fact that people can be given two years’ notice in terms of their trading rights. I believe the hon. the Minister should explain to us why he is introducing this and why he is not prepared to give these people some sort of security of operation rather than having a 24 months’ death notice hanging over their heads.

Mr. Chairman, I have received no complaint from the Durban Harbour Carriers. This provision is merely a repetition of the old section 54 of Act 70 of 1957. It is still the same stipulation. It is not altered at all. I therefore fail to understand the problem of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 45:

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

During the Second Reading debate I indicated that while this Bill in many ways contained a good deal which was constructive and helpful, while it contained some good provisions and some not so good provisions, this one was a provision which we in these benches felt was downright bad.

I believe it is unfortunate that an amendment of this nature has been placed in a Bill of this kind. It is an amendment that is anything but constructive and it is certainly extremely controversial. It is, of course, a repetition of the clause that amended the Police Act in the Police Amendment Bill of last year. It was then an obnoxious and unnecessary provision and it is equally obnoxious and unnecessary now when it is applied to the activities of the S.A. Railway Police. Again, one should consider what one is doing in this clause because subsection (8)(a) reads—

1. (i) the constitution, movements deployment or methods of any member or part of the Force concerned in any action for the prevention or combating of terroristic activities as referred to in section 2 of the Terrorism Act, 1967 (Act No. 83 of 1967);
2. (ii) Any person against whom or group of persons against which any action referred to in subparagraph (i) is directed … or
3. (iii) Any action referred to in subparagraph (i) by any member or part of the Force together with any member or part of the South African Defence Force or the South African Police Force.

It provides that this information cannot under any circumstances be published except with the permission of the Minister or the Commissioner of the Railway Police. I believe it is a thoroughly bad provision. It is an all-embracing power to gag and to exclude the Press and it is totally unnecessary. It is also a very serious infringement indeed of the public’s right to know. If they are to know anything about the activities of the S.A. Railway Police, then they will only know that with the kind permission of the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner who set themselves up as super censors in regard to this information. All of this is done in the name of anti-terrorism. It places the media in a totally impossible position. How on earth can any newspaperman or anyone who is involved, when they look at the activities of the S.A. Railway Police, determine whether those activities are directed against terrorism or not? How can a newspaperman who is watching the Railway Police in action determine whether the action being taken by the member of the Railway Police falls within the terms of the Terrorism Act? To my mind it is a ridiculous situation and it is a total over-reaction to a situation that exists at the present time. As I say, it places the newspapers in a totally impossible position. I do not believe it is necessary. I know the Government will come forward and they will say that because of the situation in the country and because of terrorist attacks and so on this sort of measure is necessary, but the Government has other ways and means of meeting a situation where terrorism may perhaps be helped by the publication of the activities of the S.A. Railway Police. First of all, there is the Official Secrets Act which gives them very considerable power. Section 3(2) of the Official Secrets Act provides that—

It imposes considerable penalties. That is the one course they have. They already have the power, if it is in connection with the security of the State and deals with people who knowingly and willingly publish information that can affect the security of the State, in the Official Secrets Act. Why must they now over-react and arrogate powers in regard to the activities of the S.A. Railway Police to forbid any sort of publication? That, in fact, is what the effect is going to be. There will be very few newspapers, particularly having regard to the Draconian penalties involved at the end of this clause, that will easily report on any of the activities of the S.A. Railway Police. Is that what the hon. the Minister intends? Does he want a complete gag? Does he want a shut-out of the Press in scrutinizing in any way the activities of the S.A. Railway Police? How, for example, will a newspaper reporter determine, if he sees a Railway policeman arresting a man, whether that man is suspected in terms of the Terrorism Act, whether he is a common thief, whether he is a pilferer from the Railways or anything of that nature? How does a newspaperman know the difference? How does he know that this does not perhaps fall under section 3(2) of the Official Secrets Act which I have just quoted? A person is being arrested, he may be a common law offender or he may be a terrorist. How does a newspaperman on the spot determine that sort of situation? In fact, therefore, the effect of this is to make the South African Railway Police immune from any comment in the Press or by the media, and I believe this is a totally bad situation in any circumstances. Law enforcement officers should, as much as any other persons, be subjected to the reasonable scrutiny of the public press and of the media, otherwise we may find ourselves in a blackout situation where people in authority can exceed their authority because they believe that they are immune from any sort of publicity in regard to activities in which they involve themselves. I think, therefore, that it is a totally bad provision and I am very sorry indeed that a provision of this kind has found its way into this Bill that in other ways is fairly constructive and positive. As I have said, it places the Press in an impossible position and, I believe, it is an attack on the freedom of the Press in South Africa. We should cherish the freedom of the Press in South Africa because one very often boasts overseas that the Press in South Africa enjoys more freedom than in most parts of Africa, and this is true. But the more we insert provisions of this nature, imposing further curbs on the Press, the more we do harm to the general image of South Africa as a country where there should be freedom on many fronts. If we attack the Press and impose curbs of this kind we cause great harm to South Africa. It is an over-reaction, Sir. I know the hon. the Minister and other hon. members will get up and point out that we are experiencing terrorist activities. However, as I said in the first place, there is the Official Secrets Act in terms of which the Government can act.

I believe there is another method open to them, namely to co-operate with the Press. This is the other point which I want to make very strongly. The Steyn Commission on Press activities in relation to the South African Police and the Railway Police indicated that there was a very wide area in which there could be an improvement in relations between police authorities, the Press and the media. I believe that by co-operation and consultation with the Press, the hon. the Minister can achieve precisely the same results. If, in fact, there are terrorist activities in respect of which the Police do not want publicity, I believe they will find the Press all too ready to co-operate. But instead of that the Government over-reacts and comes along with a measure of this kind, introduces a clause of this kind which, I believe, does irreparable harm. As I have said, this measure is not only a restriction on the Press but in my view it infringes the right of the public to know what law enforcement officers are doing. This, I think, is a very important right indeed and I believe an infringement of this right should not be contained in a provision of this kind. It is a provision which we view in the most serious light and that is why I have moved the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, once one has sat in this House for some time, one can understand that the hon. members of the PFP will oppose legislation of this nature, and not because it concerns the protection of the rights of the Press. Recently the hon. members have shown that as soon as the South African Police, the Defence Force or the Railway Police are involved in any matter, they are opposed to them. Does the hon. member for Berea remember “the horror situation on Johannesburg Station”, the Harris affair? Will he concede that if we had then had a law of this nature, possibly more of the people in league with Harris could have been apprehended in the same week? The fact that this story was published on the very same day—along with other reports which were not always correct in every detail—led to people throughout Johannesburg feeling insecure after the explosion. Let us also consider the case of a newspaperman who reports on the actions of the Railway Police. I can assure hon. members that there are not so many of these actions which need be reported, except perhaps the blowing up of railway lines by terrorists, or the blowing up of police stations, because frequently such behaviour is aimed against authority in the country. Do hon. members not think that the country could very easily go without the reporting of such items of news for a week? Frequently newspapermen cannot ascertain all the facts in a shorter period. I cannot, therefore, understand why that hon. member is becoming so excited. Perhaps I should just explain everything nicely to him. This clause applies to much more than just the Press. It also concerns behaviour that hampers the activities of the police. Given the present situation in South Africa, we cannot allow laxness of any kind when it comes to the maintenance of law and order. The Press has rights, and I am the last person to deny the Press its rights. However, when it comes to the question of law and order, then law and order must be maintained. There are too many people in this country who, under the cloak of freedom—especially freedom of the individual—want to overthrow order in the country. There are people in this country—even the hon. member for Berea said so—who allege: “Some people will eventually change the ballot box for the matchbox.” I think the hon. member will remember saying this. These are people who incite or prompt other people to resort to certain behaviour.

South Africa is one of the countries of the world where the police must be afforded protection. With the large number of people we have, people of different nations or ethnic groups, it is particularly important that law and order be maintained at all times. Why then does that hon. member protest so vociferously? All that need be done is to ascertain whether the report on the police or terrorist incident written by the newspaperman is true or not. The Opposition is opposed to legislation involving the protection of the public and they were also opposed to legislation affording members of the Defence Force protection. They were also opposed to legislation to protect the police, and now they are opposed to legislation to protect the actions of the Railways Police. Are they not concerned about the thousands of people in a train who could be blown up? I have told the hon. member for Berea that that day on the Johannesburg Station that a policeman walked past the bench on which that suitcase was standing three or four times. Earlier those hon. members called the policemen “nosey parkers” if they looked at anything. Those hon. members want to overthrow order in the country.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: May that hon. member say that we want to overthrow order in this country?

Order! Can the hon. member for Langlaagte explain what he meant when he said that?

My contention is that the behaviour of those hon. members is aimed at overthrowing order in the country. Their behaviour and statements, their opposition to certain laws can result in order in this country being overthrown.

The hon. member may proceed.

It is time that the PFP are seen for what they are. Recently they have agitated about every Bill, under the pretext that they want to protect the freedom of the Press or of the individual, or that they are doing so in terms of the rule of law. On whose behalf are they protesting? On behalf of the transgressor or on behalf of the one who is to be protected? They have never been on the side of those who must be protected. They have always been on the side of the transgressor who demands certain rights. I agree that the transgressor also has rights. Usually he is afforded those rights in a court of law. However, the public takes the PFP too lightly. For too long they have been allowed to joke about the security situation in the country. Again this afternoon a group of them joined the demonstrators in the church and later were in the van of the protest march. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to state this party’s stand in respect of the provisions of this clause very clearly. The clause before us is identical to that which was contained in the Second Police Amendment Act. We supported that Act at the time. I want the House to know that this party will always be seen to support legislation which prohibits the publication of information regarding the South African Forces, be it the Defence Force, the Police Force or the S.A. Railways Police Force, that are engaged in combating terrorism. We will always vote against the publication of information regarding the enemy. In South Africa today the enemy is the terrorist. We believe that by doing so, we are also voting for the prohibition of the public disclosure of information that could lead to a severe loss of life. One only has to think in terms of the hundreds of people that one train can carry to realize the significance of what I am saying. In the light of terrorist activities and the attacks we have had on a number of police stations, such as the one at Booysens, to think of one, and the attack on the Silverton Bank and recently, during the last election campaign, explosive devices being placed on railway lines in Natal … one only has to think of these things to realize that the indiscriminate publication of detailed information on police movements and counter-measures could hamper the combating of this form of terrorism and endanger innocent lives. In the light of the limitations contained in this clause, relating specifically and solely to terrorist action and counter-action, as well as the provision for clearance on reports for publication, we support the clause. We firmly believe that the effective combating of this evil in our midst is far more important than newspaper scoops, sensationalism or guess-work.

Or the public’s right to know.

I am coming to that. Only those directly involved can really determine what information will help those bent on the destruction of internal peace and security.

I want now, Sir, to come to the interjection that has just been made by the hon. member for Berea in regard to the public’s right to know. The hon. member for Berea used certain other phrases in his speech. He referred to the gagging of the Press and he also referred to the fact that this Government was setting itself up as super censors. I am not here to defend the actions of this Government. The hon. member for Berea also referred to what he called an overreaction to a situation that exists at the present time. He also used that lovely old expression about draconian penalties. The hon. member for Berea, as I say, has just said again by way of interjection: “What about the public’s right to know?” He is correct, Sir; the public has a right to know. However, what is the public told? Let me quote to the House, Sir, what the public was told on Tuesday of this week in an editorial that appeared in an English language newspaper circulating in South Africa. I want to quote what the public was told. The article states, inter alia—

We know about that. We know what happened to that Bill when it went to the Senate and we know about the amendments. However, listen to what follows in that article. It states—

But that provision is not in the Bill before us! That provision was removed from the Second Police Amendment Bill before the Bill was introduced into this House. Then, this paragon of virtue, because of the “public’s right to know”, tells the public this in his final paragraph—

He is talking about the Bill of the hon. the Minister of Police of last year—

And now I want hon. members to listen to this—

To incorporate the clause. Which clause? The clause that was dropped.

The Police Amendment Bill was passed.

I know that, Sir. However, this paragon of virtue, as I say, says—

But I am supporting you.

I know that, Sir; I thank the hon. the Minister.

Now, Sir, what does the public infer from this? The public infers from this that the very provisions that were deleted from the Police Amendment Bill last year are now being incorporated in this measure before us here today. This comes from the editor of The Natal Mercury in an editorial dated Tuesday, 18 August 1981. This is the Prime Minister of that newspaper! What are we going to do about it? How on earth can these people expect us to protect the so-called right of the press and the public’s right to know, as the hon. member for Berea says, when they tell blatant lies like this? I am quite happy to go outside of this House and say that this is a blatant lie. [Interjections.]

Sir, this party supported the clause last year and this party will support this clause this year. I want to say that this party is not to be seen to support a press that cannot report what is happening in this House accurately let alone be entrusted to report anything to do with the actions of terrorists and enemies of the State.

Mr. Chairman, somebody once described the Press as being something like a mother-in-law: If one wants to be married, one has to have a mother-in-law, and if one wants to live in a democracy, one has to have the Press. I do not necessarily share that view, but the view that we on this side of the Committee have is that a free Press and a democracy have to go together. If one wants to have a free society, one has to have a free Press. As far as we are concerned, this is a non-negotiable issue.

A free and responsible Press.

Now we hear “a free and responsible Press”. It sounds like a father talking to his 19-year-old son who wants a motor-cycle. He is responsible, but every father thinks that his son is irresponsible and unfree, and vice versa. I want to repeat here that this party’s view is that the freedom of the Press is a non-negotiable issue, and we are not going to have it fiddled with by the hon. members opposite.

Must the Press have the unqualified freedom to lie?

If that hon. member thinks the newspapers lie or libel him, he has many recourses. This House never gave the newspapers any more rights than he or I have.

Sure.

There are many laws which the Government has and which all civilized countries have. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Berea has already drawn the attention of the Committee to the Official Secrets Act.

Are you in favour of an unqualified free Press?

Yes, an unqualified free Press in terms of the law of the land and not these kinds of things the hon. the Minister of Police is grinning about. He should be ashamed of himself coming out of and representing a constituency which stands for human rights and is as decent as Potchefstroom. [Interjections.]

Let us just analyse what happens when there is a disaster. Let us suppose there is an explosion on a railway line somewhere in this country. Immediately there is a Press report. The SABC might come six hours later with it. Immediately the public know that there has been an explosion on the railway line and immediately they want to read about it. Any Pressman worth his salt does not just publish a report; he ’phones the Railways commissioner or whomever is responsible. [Interjections.] Sir, I bet you that no journalist worth his salt will be in journalism, unless it is for The Citizen, for more than about three months …

With whom did this editor check?

The hon. member for Umhlanga must sort out his own squabbles, if he wants to; I am not here to solve his problems.

The point is that no journalist not worth his salt will remain on the staff of a newspaper. Every journalist has to do a decent job. [Interjections.] Well, the hon. member there should talk to them and they will tell him who the useless journalists are. The point is that the report goes through and the public get the news. Die Burger gave a good description of it; they were talking about a “berig” that came in the other day and they said, “Ag, dit het kort beentjies”. The public are not fools; they do not believe everything they read in the newspapers. Why did the HNP do so well in the last election? They did not have a newspaper to help them, but they got nearly 250 000 votes, nearly as many as the PFP got. [Interjections.]

Order!

Why did Ministers of State have such poor attendances at all their public meetings? Because the public were sick of seeing them on television! They then came to hear the Opposition because we never appeared on television. The public are not fools.

What happens? There is an explosion on a railway line. The public read about it in the newspapers, but they do not immediately make a judgment. The next day they read a further report in the newspaper and then they learn it was methane gas from maize rotting on the farm of the hon. the Minister that exploded the railway line. Then they say, “Well, what is all the fuss about?”

The point is that the Government becomes paranoic about the Press. The Government has come to the stage where it has a kind of conspiratorial view of the Press. If we have a total onslaught in this country, I think it is vital that the Press should know as much as possible, because the more publicity there is, the stronger the nation is being made. If the Government wants to build up an attitude in this country of resistance to terrorism and that kind of thing, then the more the public know what is in fact going on, the better it is. One could go to a country like Northern Ireland where there is terrorism all the time—I mention this as an example—and yet the Stock Exchange there goes up and down all the time depending on the price of gold. Life goes on. I would not want to live there, but the point is that there is a free Press and that people are prepared to face up to the issues. I believe that this sort of legislation represents a very short-sighted view of the position.

You do not know what you are talking about.

I think I do. The point is that, even if I do not know all the hon. the Minister’s gory details, I do know certain principles. Terrorism is not peculiar to this country, and let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, that we will have a lot more of it in this country. We know that; anybody who knows anything about history can see that we will have more of this. I do not believe, however, that this kind of Bill is the way to deal with it. I accept that our journalists, with very few exceptions, are responsible people and good South Africans, and I believe that 90% or more of the people in this country abhor terrorism and abhor that kind of violence. The way to do it is to let the silent majority express themselves. By gagging the Press in this manner I believe the hon. the Minister is defeating his object. I really do. I think the poor hon. Minister of Transport Affairs, who understands the point I am making, is embarrassed by having to pass this kind of law. There is one other point in this clause that I want to bring to his attention. That is in subsection (7)(a), and which reads as follows—

1. (i) makes a sketch or takes a photograph of any person who is, with a view to criminal proceedings, detained in lawful custody or who is a fugitive after he has escaped from such custody; or
2. (ii) in any manner publishes or causes to be published any sketch or photograph of any person referred to in subparagraph (1) …

As I see it, this is a contravention of the “Police File” programme on television, and I think the Minister ought to clarify this because technically something like the SATV might unwittingly be contravening the law in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I want to stress again that this measure that we are passing in subsection (8) is a sign of a frightened and short-sighted Government which has got only a short time to rule this country, and I believe that it is a shame that we have this kind of stuff in legislation, and therefore we will be opposing it.

Mr. Chairman, what the official Opposition refuse to realize, or what they are shutting their eyes to, is that terrorism has become a harsh reality in South Africa. If the hon. Opposition are in fact aware of this, and they admit that they are, then they do not seem to mind about it unduly, nor are they very concerned about it. They are not interested in helping to protect South Africa against this threat. This is all that their behaviour today can mean; the only way in which it can be interpreted. Not only do we have to contend with terrorism as a harsh reality today, but we must also expect—and everything points to this—that it is going to escalate in the foreseeable future. It would be foolish and extremely irresponsible of a Government in South Africa and also of this Parliament not to take cognizance of this and not to learn from recent incidents in our country, at Silverton, Booysens, Sasol, Secunda, Natref and also the recent events in the North Eastern Cape. Our hon. Prime Minister and other ministers are constantly telling us—and we must bear this in mind—that South Africa is at present in the midst of an unconventional war. Thus far it has fortunately been a low intensity war, but our hon. Ministers are warning us and preparing us for a possible increase in intensity. It is therefore inevitable that internal order in the country will be implicated, to its detriment. But it is clear that this does not matter to the Opposition. They are not interested. We accepted the principle contained in this Bill last year, in the Police Act. All we need do is justify the extension of what is already applicable to the South African Police and the Defence Force, to include the Railways Police as well.

If we want to consider this we must ask ourselves what the terrorist targets would be in the railway network and the activities of the Railway Administration. It is inevitable and understandable that the terrorist will find many prime targets in the railway network. I am referring to the installations for which the Railways Administration is responsible. It would be extremely detrimental to us if we were to lose some of those installations or even if they were to be damaged or immobilized, to use the terminology of the National Key Points Act. We must realize that the Railway Police are the security branch of our transport services. Consequently they are responsible for the protection of a whole range of these installations. One thinks for instance of railway stations, airports, harbours and then the trains and aircraft as such. All these will of necessity be prime targets for today’s terrorist. For these reasons it is not only essential that these provisions be extended to include the Railway Police; it is also absolutely justified.

The hon. member for Berea spoke of the public’s right to know. The hon. member for Umhlanga has already dealt with this and we welcome the responsible standpoint adopted by the NRP here today.

It is asked what it is that the public wants to know and the Press wants to have access to which is not permitted to be published in terms of these legal provisions. The hon. the Minister of Police answered this question as long ago as last year. It was also answered last year by the hon. Deputy Minister of Defence when he tabled the National Key Points Bill. Both of them pointed out that there is absolutely no question of a total prohibition on publication. For example, the hon. the Minister of Police said (Hansard, 2 June 1980, col. 7794)—

He then adds the following proviso—

It relates to only three matters which were summarized as follows by the hon. the Minister—

1. (i) particulars relating to the police themselves;
2. (ii) particulars relating to the people or group against whom the action is directed, i.e. the enemy;
3. (iii) particulars relating to joint action by the police and the Defence Force and/or the Railways Police.

It is therefore a prohibition of limited scope. When he tabled the National Key Points Bill, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Defence motivated the matter in great detail and made the pertinent point that (Hansard, 12 June 1980, col. 9151)—

It is therefore evident that the entire motivation for this legal provision is fully justified and was also fully motivated by the hon. the Minister.

I also just want to point out that the statement the hon. member for Berea wanted to make that reports on “any sort of activity” will ostensibly be prohibited unnecessarily, is definitely not true. The whole problem with hon. members of the official Opposition is that they have no sympathy with the Government’s efforts to safeguard this country against acts of sabotage and terrorism, which are nowadays becoming commonplace. It is also noticeable that the attempt at opposition displayed by the hon. members of the Opposition on this occasion is very significant, because I believe they know they are not acting responsibly and in accordance with public feeling by opposing this kind of measure. This is also why they did not follow the logical and normal course of opposing this measure in the Second Reading stage. During the Second Reading stage they merely referred vaguely to the fact that they would oppose this clause during the Committee Stage. It is, after all, a matter of principle, something about which they could have put their case properly in longer speeches, speeches of 30 minutes. However, because they had little to say and were afraid of possible public reaction, their conduct and opposition to this provision have been rather feeble today.

I believe there is complete justification for this provision and I therefore support the acceptance of the clause as it is printed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again because my time expired when I spoke previously. I did not then have time to complete my argument, but I should like to continue now.

I should like to sketch a little background to what happened in this House with regard to the type of wording that we have in the clause now under discussion. Last year, it is true to say, the hon. the Minister of Police brought before this House his Second Police Amendment Bill, and in his Second Reading speech had the following to say (Hansard, 1980, col. 7794)—

That covers the point I made earlier about the removal of offensive clauses in that Bill. Offensive they were indeed to us, and I also think they were offensive to the rank and file outside this House. The Bill was then acceptable and we supported it, as I indicated in my earlier argument. The official Opposition then moved—it was done by the then hon. member for Musgrave, now the hon. member for Berea (Hansard, 1980, col. 7805)—

This is the strongest possible objection that can be expressed to a Bill before this House. What concerns me is the fact that since all this took place on Monday, 2 June 1980 we have had another measure before us, namely the Armaments Development and Production Amendment Bill, which was debated in this House on Friday, 6 June 1980—four days later. I want to read clause 11(a) of that particular Bill. It states—

I am sure that this Committee will agree that there is a tremendous similarity between that clause and the clause that was originally in the Bill that the hon. the Minister of Police brought before the Other Place and which was amended. If I may refresh the hon. the Minister of Police’s memory, his clause stated: “No person shall disclose to any person” and it was amended to read: “No person shall publish in any newspaper, magazine, book or pamphlet or by radio”. Therefore we have a similarity except that this, if I may borrow the expression—and I hope that I do not borrow it too often because I do not like it particularly—is far more “draconian” than the police measure in that nobody will be permitted to tell anybody anything about armaments. It is interesting to hear some of the arguments. In Hansard, 6 June 1980, column 8314 an hon. member said—

He goes on to say a little later—

That was the terminology used by the hon. member for Berea a little earlier—

And who was that hon. member?

That hon. member was a Mr. H. H. Schwarz, the hon. member for Yeoville. I want to know what the difference is between what the hon. member for Yeoville terms a defence matter, “a matter which relates to the national security, and therefore one can support this without any difficulty whatsoever”, and the issue that is before this Committee now. That is what I should like to know. What are we talking about? I want to know where the consistency of the official Opposition is. Where is that party’s consistency? I cannot for the life of me imagine what is going on here. I venture to suggest that the Press will not be publishing much of what I have said here this afternoon. I can assure hon. members it will not be doing that. As a matter of fact, I venture to suggest that they will not be correcting their editorial either. This hon. Press will put out the message to the outside world. Many people will then write in and will have a lot to say about “draconian measures” and they will use all these superlatives that we heard earlier. I am speaking from experience, because this is exactly what happened last year in Durban. We experienced all this until I eventually wrote to the Press and, wonder of wonders, they published the letter, and suddenly it all stopped.

Sir, when the public really appreciate what it is that is being done here and they realize what it is that this Committee seeks to do, then they will understand what it is all about. I do submit to this Committee that when the public is told in the anxious voice, in the anxiety which these hon. members here want them to know names of terrorists and what terrorist activities are all about, if they are told with the same measure of anxiety of the fact that these hon. members themselves cannot reach accord on matters affecting the security of this country, that they are divided within their own ranks, as proved in the Hansard that I have quoted—when the public become aware of this, then perhaps we will get somewhere as far as security legislation is concerned in this country.

Mr. Chairman, in point of fact we are only arguing about a certain subsection of the South African Transport Services Bill, and this subsection concerns only one thing, and that is to make matters as difficult as possible for terrorists in this country. That is all that is involved. It is a simple question: Do we want to make matters as easy as possible or as difficult as possible for terrorists? What is the aim of this subsection? What does it say? “Subject to certain provisions no person … shall publish.” Remember, they may not publish. What may not be published?—The constitution of any part of a Force. According to the provision it may not be published that there are, for example, two officers and 20 men. Do the hon. members of the official Opposition want this to be published? Must the constitution of a Force engaged in antiterrorist activities be published? Is that what they want? I do not quite know what they want. In the second place, the hon. members want everyone to know whether the police at one station have obtained reinforcements from another station as a precautionary measure. Must those movements be revealed in the newspapers for the terrorists to read?

The third prohibition is on the provision of information in connection with the deployment of a Force, i.e. it may not be stated that there are 10 men at a certain place, five at another and only one somewhere else. Must we publicize in the newspapers the deployment of a Force engaged in combating terrorist activities? That is what they are advocating.

Let us consider the fourth and last matter which may not be published, namely the methods used by the police. The police deal with certain matters in accordance with a predetermined method. Must those methods now be revealed so that everyone can see what they are?

This, Sir, is what the entire subsection is about, i.e. only these four aspects, and if one does not accept this one has ulterior motives. Then one comes along with fine words like “freedom of the Press” and “it is unnecessary measures”, but one does not wish to acknowledge that action must be taken against terrorism. Sir, I say: They are soft on security, and have always been so. The hon. member for Berea said here tonight that this piece of legislation is totally unnecessary because the Official Secrets Act makes complete provision for this. However that hon. member knows that this is not so, because in 1980, on Monday 2 June, the hon. member referred to security matters and said (col. 7799)—

It may be that action by the South African Police is covered by the Official Secrets Act, but the South African Railways Police is not mentioned anywhere in that legislation. [Interjections.] I should like to teach that hon. member something. I took a look at the legislation but that hon. member failed to show where the Railways Police as such are mentioned. He did not even quote in full from the Hansard of his speech of last year. His argument that the Official Secrets Act applies to the Railways Police and that this piece of legislation is therefore unnecessary, falls away. Provision is not made anywhere else for the Railways Police, for whom provision is in fact made in this piece of legislation. They are not covered by the Official Secrets Act.

I now come to the “gag the Press” allegation. Those hon. members talk about the co-operation that should occur, but this piece of legislation is one that makes special provision for co-operation with the Press. Clause 45(8)(b) makes provision for any publication to be exempted, provided the Minister or the Commissioner is consulted. This is therefore co-operation with the Press at the highest level, but responsible co-operation presupposes a responsible Press. I cannot, therefore, understand why so much fuss is being made about this clause, because it is quite clear. Those hon. members are taking this matter completely out of context and their intention is, quite simply, to make matters easier for terrorists. As I said a moment ago: “They are soft on security”.

They are also soft on communism.

I should like to quote what that hon. member said on Monday, 2 June 1980 (Hansard, col. 7805)—

The hon. member is here referring to the Police legislation. I quote further—

To know what?

To know what is going on.

To know security secrets?

That is absolutely basic.

In other words they have to know security secrets. However I quote further—

He says they are not only talking about security secrets. In my humble opinion this explains the approach of those hon. members to this Bill, because the clause in question is clear. However, they want to reveal everything—not only security matters, but everything. We on this side of this House, however, have a responsibility to the public, more specifically the policeman who must frequently act under very difficult circumstances. We definitely have a responsibility towards them and cannot allow them to be prejudiced.

Those hon. members refer to the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner as “supercensors”. If in the heat of battle, when terrorists must be outsmarted, a quick decision must be taken as to whether something can be published or not, must it be necessary to run to the law courts to obtain an interdict? Or what must the people do? There is surely not time for this sort of thing. After all, that is laughable! Someone must take a decision, and that decision must be taken on the spot. It is therefore nonsense to talk about “super-censors” and “gagging”. Those hon. members sit back in their easychairs and do not realize what is going on. However, we trust the hon. the Minister and the Commissioner of Police when it comes to decisions. Do those hon. members not trust them? To me the most important aspect of this argument is that in terms of clause 44 of this Bill it is laid down that the functions of the Force also include the preservation of the internal security of the Republic. As such they must act in co-operation with the South African Police. There is now one Act for the South African Police and those hon. members want another Act for the Railways Police. One now has to be very careful when taking photographs; one may take a photograph of the Railways policeman, but not of the ordinary South African policeman standing next to him. That is obviously ridiculous. When the Railway police and the South African Police act jointly it must be in terms of the same laws. That is obvious. For that reason I cannot understand why the Opposition is making such a fuss. The basic fault of the Opposition is that they rate individual rights so highly that they begrudge group rights, such as the rights of the police.

Now that I have discussed this aspect, I wish to say that I am convinced that it is imperative that this clause be agreed to by Parliament as it stands. I want to tell the people at large that I think the PFP is “soft on security”. I do not think the NRP is; I think they co-operate in the interests of the country under these circumstances. We shall promote the interests of the policeman and the interests of those he must protect. We are going to act against terrorists to the best of our ability and with all the strength we can muster.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West spoke as if this clause was the first piece of security legislation ever introduced in this House, as if there had never been anything like this before. He spoke as if there is a crisis at this stage because the Press has thus far had the right to report on the activities of the Railways Police in a situation described in section 2 of the Terrorism Act. This is obviously not true. Another odd aspect of his argument was that he suggested that the terrorist spends his evenings in front of his fire, wearing slippers and reading the newspaper. That is not how these people obtain their information, nor is it necessary for them to do so.

How do you know [Interjections.]

That foolish hon. member is so uninformed and so in the dark that he cannot even imagine anything of the kind. This clause again creates a situation in which the activities of the Railways Police, like those of the South African Police, are removed from the public eye. Many arguments were raised in this connection last year when we discussed the Second Police Amendment Act. What I have found interesting and particularly striking is that thus far, no meaningful explanation has been given as to why this sort of provision is necessary. When I say meaningful, I expect that just one tangible example be provided of how this sort of provision can make any real difference. What we have heard thus far are vague statements, for example that the Police and their activities are being protected, that they are being looked after and that terrorism is being combated. We all know this, but these are generalizations. Not a single hon. member has applied this argument to the actual situation or even has tried to mention one meaningful example of the way in which this clause is going to make a difference as regards the effectiveness of measures taken against terrorism and other subversive activities.

Once again I wish to express my conviction that this provision is not an essential provision; on the contrary, it is an unnecessary provision. It places a real restriction on the Press, and I want it placed on record that any hon. member who supports this sort of measure must not talk about freedom of the Press, because that would be meaningless. Such an hon. member is uttering empty words. It is absolute nonsense to argue here that one really believes in freedom of the Press while supporting this sort of provision. Let us consider who will benefit by such a provision in our Statute Book. There is only one element that can benefit and that is not the good policeman, the good defence force man or unit. The only element which can benefit is those few members of the Defence Force, the S.A. Police or the Railways Police who abuse their powers. They are the only people who will benefit.

Mr. Chairman, an anomaly regarding this legislation which makes its motivation somewhat more obscure than it is already, is the fact that a total prohibition has not been imposed on the publication of information, as is the case in other legislation which imposes a more comprehensive prohibition on the dissemination of any information rather than a mere prohibition on publication. The hon. member for Umhlanga also referred to this sort of legislation. Here there is only a prohibition on publication—publication in a newspaper or transmission over a radio or television network. Any information obtained in manner whatsoever can be freely transmitted in terms of this clause—orally, by letter, by telegram or whatever. In terms of this clause one can deal freely with such information.

Now, I wonder whether this does not upset hon. members opposite, because one wonders why this is so. I can think of only one explanation, and that is that the degree of confidentiality which applies in any event to operational plans, the movements or the constitution of the Railways Police when they are operating in a situation, is adequate, as is the case with the Defence Force. After all, there is confidentiality. It is surely a question of discipline that plans drawn up to launch a certain attack or operation will be highly confidential and top secret. This has nothing to do with publication, because even the junior members of a unit are not even entrusted with this sort of information. I wish to state that one of the reasons why the normal transmission of information, the normal distribution of information of this nature is not prohibited in terms of this clause is just that thus far, that confidentiality has been adequate.

The question therefore arises why this measure is also not sufficient with regard to publication in a newspaper or transmission by means of a news medium such as radio and television. Only the hon. the Minister can answer this question for us.

Another element deserving attention in the discussion of this clause is the mechanism whereby to give effect to the provision. How does this sort of thing work in practice? The fact of the matter is that this system simply cannot work well. There can be no question of the effective issuing or dissemination of information while such a provision exists in the Statute-Book. It is just not possible. An extremely heavy burden will be placed on the shoulders of an official, because ultimately it will be an official who will have to give the necessary permission.

One can imagine a journalist receiving information at 6 or 7 o’clock in the evening which he would like to report in his newspaper the following morning. By 10 o’clock that same night he must have the information available, because he must then write what must appear the following morning. Can one imagine him approaching such an official for information? He is placing an impossible onus on that official, whom he must contact after hours and probably at home. The official must now try to check the information to make sure the facts are 100% correct. What this means, therefore, is that a journalist, for whom it is a question of professional honour and pride to collect and disseminate news, must subordinate his judgment to an official on whom this unreasonable burden is placed.

And it is an unreasonable burden, because I can imagine that a great deal of information is probably received by various journalists at the same time, and different people get different views and different elements. They all descend on this poor unfortunate man and ask him: “Is this information correct and can we publish it?”

Who is this unfortunate man?

I contend that it is difficult if not impossible to check this information.

†The Press is in the business of disseminating information and I do believe that it must be given some professional recognition. They do know how to deal with news and how to present it to the public and they do work within a strict discipline, dictated by their own system, their own editorial policy, the Press Council and numerous legislative constraints. They have their system, and I do not believe that there are other people who are in a better position to decide what should be published and what not. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point, who has just resumed his seat, surely does not expect us to answer his arguments. He spoke in generalities. He spoke about the “poor man” who had say whether something could be published or not, meaning the Commissioner of the Railways Police.

I think this is an important moment for us to take a brief look at the principles underlying this Bill. It is important to note what our standpoint is as regards freedom of the Press and to ask the question: “Is the Government, this side of this House, in favour of the freedom of the Press”? It is the standpoint of this side of the House that freedom of the Press is very important for democracy, not only in South Africa but in any country.

How important?

In this country a free Press is undoubtedly in reality the vital artery of democracy. It affords every person, every citizen, the right to voice his opinion freely in the Press. Opinions can be voiced and opinions formed through the medium of a free Press.

The Press is the medium through which the slow can be spurred into action and the impetuous warned to be careful. This side of this House is in favour of a free Press.

Having said this we must, however, consider certain things. The freedom of the Press is not an absolute freedom. The freedom of the Press is not an absolute freedom, because a free Press is not the primary interest of a community. In fact, a free Press is only one of the interests of a community. It is one of the interests of a community and it must take its place when weighed up against the other interests of the community and the interests of the security of the State. One must also weigh it up against the feelings of piety of a community. One must therefore weigh up a free Press against a variety, an entire spectrum, of interests of a community.

Hon. members on that side of the House act as if a free Press is the only important matter in a community. That is not so. A free Press, as I have said before, is free in the way that a fish in water is free. As long as it remains in the water it can swim wherever it wishes, but as soon as one takes it out of the water it dies. The free Press is compelled to carry out its duties within the framework of the laws of the country, within the framework of the restrictions objectively imposed on it. South Africa is not the only country where there are restrictions on the Press. It is done throughout the world. In the constitution of Germany, the Bundesrepublik, it is written that the Press is free to act within the framework of the law. The same applies in America. South Africa is a country with laws and the Press is free to act within the framework of those laws.

The question is whether the Bill which is at present before this Committee, and which, according to hon. members opposite, imposes restrictions on the freedom of the Press, is fair if one weighs up the freedom of the Press in that particular case against the security of the State and the people of the country. This is a question of fact. One must, therefore, consider the restrictions laid down in the Bill. One must ask oneself whether the restrictions are necessary for the security of the State. In this connection the hon. member for Pretoria North, and I say this with respect, gave an excellent explanation in this House. It is true that there are certain restrictions, but the restrictions are being imposed on details regarding the constitution, the movements and the deployment of a force which must limit certain terrorist activities. I want to ask this House what is unreasonable about that.

The hon. member for Berea who is the chief Opposition speaker on transport services said: “The public has the right to know”. On what grounds does the public have the right to know those things on which a prohibition is imposed in terms of subsection 8(a)? I refer to the movements and actions of the Force aimed at hitting back at certain terrorist activities. On what basis do the public have the right to know this? If the public have the right to know, what are they to do with the knowledge they gain in this connection? They cannot do anything with it. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North said that if there was a terrorist attack and a railway line was blown up or something of that sort, the public must know about it. The hon. member’s problem is that he did not read the Bill, because it imposes no restrictions on the Press as regards the publication of this information. If there is a terrorist attack, if there is a bomb attack on some railway property the Press is free to publish this news. They do so at present, and what is wrong with that? The hon. member set up a doll and then tried to knock it down, but it was a straw doll. I want to tell the hon. member that he was so carried away in an attempt to accuse the Government of anything that he did not acquaint himself with the facts. I want to put it to him that he uttered an untruth in this House. I call upon him to rise when I have finished speaking and tell the hon. members whether what I have said is incorrect.

In addition there is also a restriction on details concerning any person or group of persons against whom actions are directed. They are the attackers at that stage. Particulars regarding those attackers may not be published without the consent of this House. The hon. member for Green Point asked for an example of whom we are referring to in this connection. I suggest that the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members of the official Opposition should rather ask how this legislation can be applied in practice to the disadvantage of the public of this country and how it could impose restrictions on the Press.

I wish to make a final contention in this connection. The Government has a duty of prevention and protection. Therefore, when the Government, which is in the executive position, considers that restrictive legal measures are necessary to enable it to carry out its duty of protection properly, there is also a duty on the other party to give evidence to show why the Government does not need those powers. Instead of giving us detailed proof that the Government has gone too far, we have had exactly the opposite from the official Opposition. All we have heard from them has been non-specific insults, attacks and accusations, all aimed at hon. members on this side of this House. There were only vague accusations, totally lacking in substance.

I do not hesitate to tell the hon. the Minister that he must please continue, that we trust him and that the powers vested in him in terms of this legislation are necessary to protect the people of the Republic of South Africa against unauthorized and illegal actions aimed at undermining the safety of us all.

Mr. Chairman, the thrust of the Government’s argument on this clause seems to be that if one is against terrorism one must accept this clause; if one is against the publication of information which will help South Africa’s enemies and which will help terrorists, one must support this clause …

Oh, don’t be silly.

… if one is against the killing of innocent people, one must support this clause. We are, however, against terrorism. [Interjections.] We are against divulging information which will assist South Africa’s enemies. We are against giving information which will help terrorists. We are against giving any information which will help terrorists to kill innocent people. [Interjections.]

Order!

While we share the Government’s abhorrence of terrorism, and of giving information to the enemies of South Africa, and of killing people, we are still opposed to this clause.

You had me guessing.

What the Government fails to recognize, however, in its enthusiasm to uphold law and order, in its enthusiasm for throwing legislation at every problem, is that there is not just the right to know on the part of the public, but there is also a need to know. The public needs to know. The Steyn Commission appreciated this point. The public needs to know what is happening in a situation of escalating conflict, in a situation in which violence erupts on an unpredictable basis. The public needs to be kept informed in order to remain calm, in order to avoid the spread of alarm and consternation, in order to preserve a relationship of trust and credibility between the public and the authorities.

What this clause undermines is that very relationship of trust. It undermines the public’s trust of the information it receives. What this clause does is to stipulate that all information the public will receive relating to this kind of activity will only be made available at the whim of the authorities. It will not be received by the public from an independent watch-dog Press. It will be received at the whim of a General or a Cabinet Minister. That kind of information from that kind of source is never fully trusted by the public.

Why not?

Because that is in the nature of human affairs and the hon. member knows that. Information that comes from a vested interest is always suspect.

Why?

Information that comes from an independent watchdog is accepted as the truth. The closest thing we have to an independent source of information in this country is the free Press, no thanks to the hon. member for Pretoria West. The Steyn Commission understood this point. The Steyn Commission said that the police, the army and all such sources, should provide as much information to the public as possible and not as little information as possible. This side of the House believes that the South African Press can handle itself responsibly in these types of situation. Hon. members must give us an example of where this has been proved to be the contrary. The South African Press has served South Africa in a war situation without this kind of provision. Why suddenly this kind of provision now? The main criticism that this side of the House has of the hon. the Minister in this case is not that he is opposed to terrorism, not that he is opposed to preventing the enemy from getting information but that he has not followed the very sensible recommendations of the Steyn Commission, namely that we should have a clear communications policy between the authorities and the independent Press based upon a relationship of credibility and trust.

The only other point I wish to make on this question is to say that South Africa already has enough legislation that inhibits the Press. We have gone too far already. We have the Police Act, the Prisons Act, the Defence Act, the General Law Amendment Act, the Suppression of Communism Act and the list goes on and on. We have such laws as the Hazardous Substances Act, and now we are even going to bring in the Railway Police and the Department of Transport Affairs. We already have too much legislation. The public already does not trust the information it receives and now the Government is making it worse.

Finally, in response to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Umhlanga, I wish to say that I am pleased that the NRP advances this kind of argument.

At least we are consistent which is more than your party even knows about.

I am pleased in the sense that the NRP will always back the Government in a situation where the Government takes another step in the direction of inhibiting the great traditions of a free Press in this country. The more the NRP undermines the great traditions we have inherited from the past, such as a free Press, the quicker they will disappear.

Mr. Chairman, according to the hon. member for Pretoria Central this Committee is agreed on two things, namely, that we all believe in the freedom of the Press, and that we are all opposed to terrorism. This is a good basis on which to discuss this amendment further. The hon. the Minister of Police, when he was in this House a while ago, said that he agreed with me that at least 90% of the people in this country are opposed to terrorism. Will the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs agree with that? He does not agree with that. At least 99% of the people in this country are opposed to terrorism. Does the hon. member for Roodeplaat agree with that? [Interjections.] The hon. member does not want to answer a question. Most of the people in this country are opposed to terrorism.

Who is not?

That is a good question. Let us analyse this matter of terrorism. Who is not opposed to terrorism?

The Progs.

That is their viewpoint. Let us ask a few questions. I should like to ask the hon. members opposite a few questions. I ask hon. members: Is Mandela a terrorist?

Not any more; he is a prisoner now.

I want to ask the hon. member for Klip River whether Mandela was a terrorist.

No, he was not a terrorist; he was a communist, and still is.

Was he a revolutionary?

Yes.

I should like to ask the hon. member another question. [Interjections.] If a man who still holds a rank in the Defence Force joins the enemy …

Is he an ordinary soldier?

If a man who is a member of the Defence Force joins the enemy without resigning his commission …

He is a defector.

A defector? And what would the hon. member for Klip River do with such a defector? [Interjections.]

He has deserted?

Let us assume he has deserted. What man in this country deserted and went over to the enemy?—Jopie Fourie. [Interjections.]

Come and say that outside.

What was Jopie Fourie’s history? [Interjections.] I have a great deal of sympathy for him.

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

This clause defines terrorism. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is accepted that Mandela was a revolutionary. Jopie Fourie was an officer in the S.A. Army and did not resign his commission before he joined the enemy. [Interjections.]

Order! I requested the hon. member to come back to the clause. The clause concerns information which may not be published by newspapers or the media. The hon. member must obey the Chair.

Clause 45(8)(a)(i) refers to section 2 of the Terrorism Act. I should like to ask the hon. member for Klip River another question.

Go and ask the judge of Koffiefontein.

Was the incident at the Volkskas in Silverton an act of terrorism?

Yes.

What happened at the funeral of the people involved in those terrorist activities?

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: With all due respect, the hon. member must get away from his funeral oration and confine himself to the clause.

I ask the hon. member for Klip River: What happened at that funeral?

A few English people shouted “amandhla”.

Thousands of people shouted “amandhla”.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The hon. member is not confining himself to the clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: The clause relates specifically to terrorism, in subsection (8)(a)(i). The hon. member is dealing with the argument of terrorism relative to an amendment moved … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The point is that according to hon. members in this House, 99% of the people are opposed to terrorism. [Interjections.] Nevertheless, thousands of people attended the funeral of the terrorists. It upsets hon. members when I mention a certain Afrikaner whom some people consider to be a hero and others not.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member give us his definition of terrorism?

I will get to that in a moment. [Interjections.] If it will satisfy the hon. the Minister, I am prepared to accept the definition of terrorism as contained in the Terrorism Act.

The hon. member for Pretoria Central said if one takes a fish out of water, it dies. If we do not create a healthy society in South Africa we are going to create problems for ourselves, inter alia, by creating communism. And this is exactly why this piece of legislation is such a poor piece of legislation. We are trying to create a healthy society. That is exactly why we clashed with the hon. member for Pretoria West in this debate. He said we were soft on security while another hon. member said by way of interjection: “You are soft on democracy.” In a country like South Africa, the changes which must come, and which have thus far come rather slowly because those hon. members are terrified of the HNP, are difficult to implement. Our efforts are aimed at this: The balancing of two aspects, in order to reconcile the problem of security and that of democracy. In any civilized country this is a continual problem. [Interjections.] However it is pointless making such allegations. We need every possible piece of information. If we have a sound society, terrorism will die, like a fish out of water. [Interjections.]

Order!

We must accept that there are thousands and thousands of South Africans in this country who do not regard such things as terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member the following question: If it is because things are wrong in our society that we have terrorism here, why does terrorism also exist in Great Britain, Italy, Germany and many other countries?

That is a very good question. [Interjections.]

Well, then, give us an answer for a change.

Mr. Chairman, …

That is a stupid answer.

I have not even answered yet. [Interjections.] There is in fact terrorism in those countries, although there are other countries where there is no terrorism, for example Australia and Kenya. [Interjections.] However, thousands and thousands of people do not attend the funerals of those people. [Interjections.]

What about Tom Mboya?

They are outcasts in their societies. [Interjections.]

Order!

Can the hon. member for Maitland tell me whether the Press in those countries is subject to such laws?

Yes!

No, they are not. [Interjections.] Of that I am certain.

Mr. Chairman, if the justice of a cause is measured by the number of people who turn up at the funeral of a leader, how does the hon. member justify the society in which thousands of people turned up for the funeral of Stalin?

They attend those funerals as they attended the funeral of the wrestler who died in the Second World War. [Interjections.] The point is that terrorism in this country is not the work of a small minority completely rejected by the vast majority of the community. It has political connotations. If we do not take cognizance of this we should not be sitting in this House. [Interjections.]

Order!

What has that to do with the clause?

Mr. Chairman, three Opposition speakers have already spoken now, i.e. the hon. member for Green Point, the hon. member for Constantia and another hon. member. I think the whole House will agree with me that there is very little to be said about the funeral oration that has just been delivered.

We just have to say the final prayer.

That is why I should like to react to the speech by the hon. member for Constantia. That hon. member made three statements. He said: “We are all against terrorism.” This is the first statement that he made.

McIntosh says 99%.

The hon. member’s second statement was: “The public needs to be kept informed.” The third statement was: “The Minister and the Commissioner are not respected or to be relied upon.” Let us take those three mouthfuls together in an attempt to determine exactly what was said. Firstly: “We are all against terrorism.” Since the hon. member is a relatively new member in the House and, I believe, believes what he says—and I have a great deal of respect for this—I think, without being at all presumptuous, that he must also take note of the fact that this is not the impression that the man in the street has of the behaviour of the group of which he is a member. He must take note of the fact that a type of aura surrounds the hon. members of the official Opposition that they are not opposed to terrorism, because when anything is said in favour of the rights of terrorists, criminals or the Press that reports things in a biased fashion, or in their defence, it always comes from one corner of the House only. That is why I feel it is important that the young hon. member should take note of this. Perhaps he can exert a healing effect on that group in which he is operating. If he wants to attach credibility to his own statement, he will have to work very hard, together with the hon. member for Yeoville, to try to say, as the hon. member for Yeoville does: “When the undermining of or the security of the citizen of South Africa is at stake, I stand by that.” It seems to me as if the hon. member is on the right track, and I just want to put it to his consideration that the Leader of his party is in dire need of this.

The hon. member also said: “The public needs to be kept informed.” I do not think that any of us differ with that statement, but the public would prefer to sleep peacefully and feel safe tonight. They want to feel that their families and their possessions are safe. The public wants to believe that they are safe and that the State is watching over them, because they pay taxes and vote for people in Parliament who have to ensure that the necessary measures and instruments are created. This is what the public would like to have. They do not want to know anything about bloodshed or how many people were suddenly shot dead; afterwards they want to know: “Did the Government and the security forces take effective action so that my people and my possessions are safe?”

The hon. member for Constantia also made a further statement: “The Minister and the Commissioner are not respected and could not be relied upon.” I now want to ask the hon. member a favour. The Commissioner of Prisons, the Commissioner of Police and the Commissioner of the Railways Police are people who, without respect of persons, try to do their best in their own sphere for my safety and his and for the safety of those things that belong to us. Since the hon. the Minister is a political figure, the hon. member is of course entitled to attack him; we can attack one another. However, when it comes to the functionaries, those who are really at the focal point of matters, I feel it is infra dig for an hon. member of the House to call the integrity and unimpeachability of such a person into question, because it can be broadcast throughout the world. I want to put this to the hon. member’s consideration. I do not think I have to elaborate further. I do not want to tell him it is contemptible, because I think that would be going too far; the hon. member has just arrived here. However, if I were the Commissioner, I would not have cared for it.

I want to come to a few things that the hon. member for Green Point said. Of course, the hon. member for Green Point is never at a loss for words. The hon. member rises to his feet here and says: “Very well, of course they do not write, but what about the word that is conveyed orally or the telephone call?” Apparently, the hon. member knows much more than we do about telephone calls. How can we teach the hon. member anything about telephone calls, long-distance telephone calls? [Interjections.]

I am missing one hon. member of the official Opposition tonight. I am missing the hon. member for Sandton. If we should continue tomorrow, I should like to ask the hon. member for Sandton whether he was not perhaps—look, this is merely a question —making a long-distance call to America tonight. Oh, it is just a question. [Interjections.]

Speaking of relaying words: Oh, surely the hon. member for Green Point will know that one can even relay these things across at a church service. In any event, it seemed like that to me.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: What amendment is the hon. member discussing now?

The amendment that is still before the Committee.

Sir, I am merely reacting to the debate which was conducted. As far as I am concerned, it is mere debating.

The hon. member for Green Point asked: “What about the conversation? It is not publication that is at issue after all; it is conversation, man to man.” Now I do not know, because after all I was not in St. George’s Cathedral; how should I know? All I saw was the reaction—placards and so on. Apparently the hon. member for Green Point is quite well informed about how one relays this type of thing from mouth to ear. Apparently this is the case.

Why is the official Opposition opposed to the fact that the Minister or the Commissioner can give permission for publication? Who knows better and who is better informed about what can be published? Who is at the focal point when a crisis arises? Surely, it is basically the Commissioner and the Minister. They are informed from the lowest level to the highest. They know what we can and cannot do. When it is the security of the State and the security of the residents of the State that is at issue, surely the idea is not to sow panic. Surely it is to make it possible for people to live peacefully and continue to exist peacefully, everyone living in South Africa, whether he is Black or White, Brown or Yellow. It is the most important task of the Minister and the head of the Railway Police to ensure that panic will not break out so that the ordinary citizen, the ordinary man in his home can be certain that his weal and woe is in good hands. That is why I cannot understand why these people cannot be trusted with the best interest of our own people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that the Press is such a sensitive issue. When we talk about discipline, it seems to me as if the Opposition loses their heads. I do not want to argue about all these points tonight, but when one talks about freedom and a free economy, then one has laws in order to be able to regulate the economy. If one arrives in a city like Cape Town, one finds that laws are made so that discipline can be exercised. However, if one says a single word about the Press, one is opposed. Surely experience has taught us and everyone involved in politics knows, that an innocent report is often presented in such a way that it is given a different connotation. I have never quarrelled with the Press yet but I have often been quoted very much out of context. One comes here with an issue concerning the continued existence of an organization with a turnover of R6 000 million which employs a quarter of a million people. All one is asking for is the right to protect those people in a disaster situation. This is all that one is asking. I think the Opposition has made a few very big mistakes tonight, and I shall refer to a few of them. But I shall come back to the point that anyone speaking in Parliament with one eye on the Press gallery cannot say that he is arguing with both feet on the ground. Some newspapers have already aroused feelings with regard to this clause. The hon. member for Umhlanga has already referred to an editorial in a newspaper in Natal that was completely out of context. There was also an article in the Rand Daily Mail which urged the Opposition to oppose this legislation. Therefore, these people have not been arguing on the basis of their own convictions here. This is a politician’s problem. The hon. member for Berea spoke about “other ways and means” and about the “Official Secrets Act”. The hon. member for Pretoria West has already furnished him with an effective reply and why should I go into it further? “Rather co-operate with the Press”, they say. If there is anyone who has always co-operated with the Press, then it is I, but let me tell you about an experience I had. I am not grouping all of the Press together now, but there are, however, some of them whose aim is to misrepresent things. I just want to mention a small, unimportant example. A few years ago I opened a factory of which the chairman and the board of directors were all Jewish, and by chance also good friends of mine. A few hundred people were present. I told them that I wanted to respect them as good businessmen. I then told the following story—

Someone then wrote a report in an Israeli newspaper in which he said that I had ridiculed the Jews. There was a reaction to this and the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs came to me and asked me whether I had in fact ridiculed the Jews. Even the people on the board of directors telephoned me to apologize. Can you see now, Sir, how something can be distorted? The hon. member for Langlaagte furnished very effective replies to some of these things.

†I came to the conclusion tonight that the hon. member for Umhlanga is an honest politician and a patriot.

*He does not care a straw, but he speaks with conviction and from his heart, and I respect him. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North uttered one anomaly after the other. To think that someone can knock down his own arguments like that. He says that Ireland is a country with a free Press. I cannot understand that. These were his words and they can be found in Hansard: Ireland is a country with a free Press. In reality, terrorism occurs most frequently in Ireland, and I would not like to live there. He is asking for a free Press, but in Ireland, the country where terrorism occurs most frequently, there is also freedom of the Press. Therefore, this contradicts most of his arguments.

The hon. member for Sundays River made a very fine contribution. He has made a study of this matter. The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the statements by the hon. member for Yeoville, and it is a pity that the hon. member for Yeoville was not present at the time. The hon. member for Pretoria West asked whether terrorism should be encouraged. His questions were important. He says that the Opposition’s argument boils down to the publication of things that the police are involved with. They must be published. How can we have order and discipline in a situation of chaos and terrorism, if one allows an irresponsible man—and they do exist—to take photographs and give a misrepresentation of the events whilst the lives of railway workers are at stake? How can one be in favour of this?

The hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out a very important matter when he asked why there have to be two laws, one for the S.A. Police and one for the Railway Police. How can one allow photographs to be taken and any type of story to be written with regard to a railway site where research work is being carried out, whereas when it is elsewhere and not on railway premises and the S.A. Police have taken over, it is stopped right there? One cannot govern a country in this way.

The hon. member for Green Point did not reply to any of the questions. He said that it is a matter of professional honour for the journalist to gather and disseminate information. Surely he must admit that there are journalists in our country today who are not even South African citizens and who have passports from foreign countries.

Yes.

The hon. member admits it. Must I then allow such a person who does not even have the franchise in the country and cannot even vote for the PFP, to bedevil things in this country?

He makes their policy.

The hon. members opposite are also trapped by the fear that if they support positive legislation tonight, it may result in their losing face and possibly not appearing in the newspaper tomorrow. I cannot agree with these arguments. The hon. member for Pretoria Central emphasized that it boils down to the fact that there should be freedom together with discipline. One finds this in almost every sphere.

†The hon. member for Constantia said South Africa went through a war situation without a clause such as this.

*Can one imagine an hon. member saying this after the period when Field-Marshal Smuts was in power? How many restrictions were not imposed on the Press then? He was entitled to impose restrictions in the prevailing conditions, but the hon. member for Green Point says that there was no discipline in this sphere at that time.

He had not even been born then.

Honest journalists have been mentioned. The hon. member told an untruth tonight. He spoke about the findings of the Steyn Commission. How can he talk about them? Has anyone in the House or even in the Cabinet seen the findings of the Steyn Commission yet? There is no such thing.

In their First Report.

The Steyn Commission made no recommendations relating to this matter or in connection with the decisions that were made in the Police Act.

They used it.

I conclude. I know we are going to divide. I just hope that because I have not angered anyone, the hon. members will agree that we can proceed to the Third Reading now too.

I just want to come back to a matter which the hon. member for Roodeplaat raised. I want to say that whilst we are sleeping peacefully tonight, there are people who are caring for the interests of the taxpayers and of the Railway passengers—White, Black and Coloured—and their reputation has been injured by the Opposition speaking in a reproachful, disparaging way about the Commissioner of the Railway Police. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Roodeplaat is correct. Let them attack me; I am paid to be attacked. However, they attacked and disparaged the innocent man who leaves his family in order to look after the interests of the Railways and the transportation of our children on the trains tonight, by saying that he cannot be trusted with the right to decide, for the sake of the administration of the matter, not to allow the Press to publish certain things. These are statements that were made here.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we have argued about this clause for long enough. There are many more clauses. Let us leave this matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, neither have hon. members opposite who took part in this debate, nor certainly has the hon. the Minister said anything in this debate to allay our fears about this particular clause. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister commenced his remarks by saying that there could of course not be such a thing as a Press that is absolutely free. Nobody on this side suggested that there is indeed such a thing as absolute freedom for the Press nor is there any such thing as absolute freedom for the Press in any society. Certainly the Press is not above the law and nobody on this side of the House suggested that the Press is above the law.

The hon. the Minister said all he was asking for was the right to protect people in an emergency situation. Well, I do not know what he means by the right to protect people in an emergency situation. If in saying so he believes that that has to go together with placing a restriction on our Press simply to publish news of activities as set out in this Bill, then, what the hon. the Minister is doing, is that on the one hand he is asking for the right to protect people, while he is simultaneously assailing a very basic right in a democratic society. That is the right of the people of the country to know what is taking place in that country. When the hon. the Minister says that we do not talk with conviction about this, I am afraid that I have to tell him that we talk with the very greatest conviction because we believe a free Press in any society is a very essential part of a democratic establishment. We believe that if one continues to curb and to attack the right of the Press of South Africa it is going to destroy something very basic for all the people in this country. We also believe another thing. There is no real evidence to support this. There is no real evidence at all, and not one single hon. member on the Government side produced any evidence here this evening to indicate that the press had in fact acted in an irresponsible manner.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why he is afraid to take the Press into his confidence. Why is he afraid to co-operate with the Press? Why is he afraid to consult with the Press? The matter of the original Steyn Commission, to which the hon. the Minister referred in his reply earlier, is the question I should like to clear up. Of course, there have been two Steyn Commissions. There was the Steyn Commission appointed in connection with the reporting on defence matters, and which was then extended to inquire into police matters and the affairs of the Railways Police. That is, of course, the report we are referring to. In the report of that commission the very clear injunction came to the Government to deliberate and to clear up misunderstandings between the police and the Press, and to seek co-operation in order to cure the situation which had arisen and which the commission was investigating.

But that had been done all along.

Yes. Well, I should hope so. Then, however, I do not see the need for this sort of provision. It should, of course, be done. It is a sensible and commonsense sort of thing to do. It ought to be done.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs had been here earlier he would have realized that this clause goes far beyond just that. This clause places the Press, the media as such, in an impossible situation. This clause extends restrictions far beyond reporting only on police activities, Railway Police activities, in connection with action aimed at combating terrorism. The hon. the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs, who is a lawyer himself, when he reads this clause, must certainly appreciate that. I am sure that he will in all honesty accept that it does give the police a great degree of immunity and it can be abused. It can extend far beyond police activities …

You are talking utter nonsense now.

… in the exercise of their power against terrorism. The hon. member for Pretoria Central is an expert on nonsense. He is an authority on nonsense for he talks nonsense every day of his life. [Interjections.] I do not take him seriously at all. [Interjections.]

I think that the key to the difference between this side of the House and hon. members opposite was found in many a way when the hon. Minister for Roodeplaat spoke earlier. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Roodeplaat. He is not a Minister. [Interjections.]

Well, I mean the hon. member for Roodeplaat. I sincerely hope he never becomes an hon. Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Roodeplaat was very concerned and said we seemed to be worried about the fact that the Minister and the Commissioner were going to be relied upon to decide whether or not news should be given to the media on issues of this kind. He took that very seriously. I want to say quite honestly that it is not a question of mistrusting the hon. the Minister or even the Commissioner of Police. The real crux of the matter is that we are just not that sort of people. [Interjections.]

Oh please, bring me to!

We do not accept that two people should be the sole arbiters to tell the rest of the country what is good for them and what is not. As democrats we do not accept that, irrespective of whoever the Minister is or whoever the Commissioner of Police is. It is quite wrong in any sort of society and in any sort of situation for two people to sit as the sole arbiters to decide about what news will be released with regard to activities of this kind. We believe that the hon. the Minister is a public servant. He is in public life. He is not immune either to criticism, and he knows that. He has been in politics for a long time. The same applies to the Commissioner of Police. He does not have immunity. There is no reason why these people should simply be put on a pedestal and why we should unconditionally trust their judgment to judge what is good for us, what we should know and what we should not know. When we criticize that provision we criticize it on that basis.

We do not criticize it on a personal basis, we do not suggest that they are not doing their job but we do say it is quite wrong that two people should have the job of being the sole arbiters to decide what the public should know and what they should not know. Therefore if one looks at the clause one realizes that very few speakers have attempted to analyse the exact effect of it and the extent to which it goes. The clause refers, for example, to “anybody concerned in any action”, any action for the prevention of terrorism. I ask again: Who judges? With the best will in the world how can anybody judge whether in fact a policeman exercising his duty is doing so in the interests of combating terrorism? How does anybody form a judgement on that point? When one talks in terms of the words “any action”, any action can include the arrest of an individual by an individual policeman. The detention can be any action. It is so wide ranging that it covers too wide a field and it is open to considerable abuse. That is why we believe this power is unnecessary. We believe there are other ways by which the Government can seek the co-operation of the Press. There is no one in South Africa, neither on this side of the House nor on that side of the House, no one among the Press, who wants to further the objects of terrorism in South Africa. Why do we talk in this way? It is an interesting debating point and we anticipated it earlier. When I spoke on this clause initially I said that of course the Government would come with these arguments. No one wants to see terrorism advanced in South Africa. However, I do believe that this is not the way to go about treating the situation which the Government obviously fears. I believe that the steps they are taking make the situation worse. I believe, as other hon. members have said, that the tendency will be to keep the public in the dark, to move around in the shadows, and this in itself is counterproductive because it is advantageous for rumourmongers. Rumours will be spread. It is a situation which does not help the Railway Police either because people will believe that they think that they have an immunity and this will not help in the relationship between the public and the Railway Police.

Therefore I stand by our point and I believe that in the interests of what otherwise is a fairly constructive Bill, as I have said before, this clause should be withdrawn. I also stand by the amendment that we have moved.

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

Upon which the Committee divided:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 58, in lines 10 to 15, to omit paragraph (b);
2. (2) on page 58, in line 19, to omit “(d)” and to substitute “(c)”.

These amendments comply with a request made by the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the hon. the Minister’s amendments. [Interjections.] Consequently I shall not move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that we are pleased to support his amendments. He will remember that during the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Berea broached the matter of the reference to Blacks in the legislation before us, and at that time the hon. the Minister said that if anyone could come up with a suitable amendment, he would do everything in his power to accommodate him. I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has kept his word. I should like to make my party’s policy quite clear on this issue. We shall support any measure that removes any hurtful discrimination based purely on skin colour. I am therefore very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has put these amendments before the Committee.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 55:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This also relates to the word “Black” which must fall away on the basis of our discussion during the Second Reading debate.

Mr. Chairman, as far as we are concerned, we think the hon. the Minister’s amendment is an improvement. I now wish to move only certain amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, viz. those amendments which are consequential and which ask once again for the omission of the word “Black”. I shall not proceed with the remaining two amendments appearing in my name on the Order Paper. I therefore move the following amendments—

1. (1) On page 60, in line 59, to omit “Black”;
2. (2) on page 62, in line 3, to omit “Black”;
3. (3) on page 62, in line 6, to omit “Black”;
4. (4) on page 62, in line 7, omit “in terms of paragraph (a)”;
5. (5) on page 62, in line 42, to omit “Black”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move the following amendments—

1. (2) On page 62, in line 40, to omit “Non-White”;
2. (3) on page 62, in line 46, to omit “(3)” and to substitute “(2)”.

If the amendments of the hon. member for Berea were to be accepted it would mean that liquor could even be provided in a place of employment, whereas that is not the intention. The same applies to the second amendment I proposed. The word “Non-Whites” is all that is being deleted, because otherwise those funds could be used for any other purpose. The purpose for which the funds may be utilized, must be defined. The other amendment comes to the same thing: it is purely a rectification.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the hon. the Minister’s amendments which we think are an improvement. I have, however, moved in my first amendment that the word “Black” be removed from the expression “Black employee” in line 59 on page 60. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister cannot accept that amendment.

I shall accept it.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he will also then accept my amendments (2), (3), (4) and (5). These amendments are all consequential and we are talking only about employees.

Only the word “Black”?

Yes.

I shall accept them.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the provisions of clause 59(2)(j)(v). Paragraph (j) deals with parking meters and sets out certain offences relating to parking meters for which certain penalties are prescribed. This particular sub-paragraph (v) provides that no person shall—

Mr. Chairman, I really do not think that there is anybody who, having inserted his 5c piece or whatever coin is required into a particular parking meter and finding it not working, will not shake it or bump it in order to see whether it is operating properly.

I usually kick it!

There, Sir, you see, the hon. member for Umhlanga would be arrested by a Railway Policeman just for shaking a parking meter and the Press will not be able to publish anything! [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I just want to draw these provisions to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I know the hon. the Minister is a man of good faith and means well and I want to ask him please to ask his Commissioner of Railway Police to be very generous in relation to offences covered by this particular subparagraph (v).

I shall do so.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 60:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to this clause standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This again, in a Bill of this kind, is an attempt to remove a racial situation and deal with the position on the Railways on its merits. I hope that in the same spirit of goodwill that the hon. the Minister showed in regard to the previous clause he will find his way clear to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berea affects a matter of principle which should have been raised during the Second Reading debate. According to my legal advisor this amendment is in conflict with one of the principles of this Bill. If I accept this amendment, the present situation and the discipline we apply with regard to the use of compartments exclusively by persons of specific races or various classes of persons, will be affected. As I say, this is a principle which should have been raised during the Second Reading debate. Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived (official Opposition and New Republic Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 65:

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

It is true that three days is equal to to 72 hours, but this amendment is aimed at facilitating matters for claimants in particular. The Agricultural Union asked for a period of 72 hours and in order to be accommodating, I now propose that the wording “three days” be used.

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

I feel that this amendment, which seeks to add a new subsection (5) to this clause, speaks for itself. It is aimed at providing that the South African Transport Services should be liable for compensation to people who have suffered damages from herbicides or other similar substances used by employees of the South African Transport Services. I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea as it involves increased expenditure and accordingly requires the State President’s recommendation. I shall, however, allow the hon. member one speech to attempt to convince the hon. the Minister that he should take over the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity. I recommend, then, to the hon. the Minister that he should give consideration to taking over the amendment which I have moved. I think it is a realistic and reasonable amendment which makes provision for compensation to people who might be affected.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the hon. member’s attitude towards the farmers and landowners. It is as a result of an experience at Franschhoek that this was altered, in order to accommodate certain farmers who had had problems as a result of the use of herbicides. We cannot, however, alter the principle that a farmer should prove to us that it was because of actions of the Railways that certain things happened.

*However, we do have the situation now that certain activities are not undertaken by the Railways itself, but by contractors, who have cover by way of compulsory insurance for such activities. I am very sympathetic towards farmers who may suffer damage, and if we see that we do encounter problems with the application of this clause in future, I shall reconsider the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. Let us, however, first give this provision a chance as it stands.

Amendment moved by the Minister of Transport Affairs, agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75:

Mr. Chairman, who is the successor to the Cape Copper Mining Company (Limited)? It is not clear to me from the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, section 11 of the relevant Act of the Cape of Good Hope only makes provision for the levying of docking fees and charges by the successor of the Cape Copper Mining Company with regard to goods landed and shipped at the wharf of Port Nolloth harbour. Accordingly there is no statutory authorization for the levying of charges relating to stevedore work, docking charges, hire of equipment and the harbour barracks. In order to place the matter on a sound footing it is necessary to repeal the provisions of section 11 of Act No. 4 of 1869 and to make provision in this clause for the levying of charges for the various services provided at, or in connection with the use of, the jetty at Port Nolloth harbour and the transport of goods to or from that jetty.

Clause agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1, standing over.

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to be very brief. I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I believe the hon. the Minister said he was prepared to accept this amendment.

Yes, I am prepared to accept that. I also move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last Friday evening, I was pointing out that the provision with regard to registration contained in the Bill, is a very important one. I pointed out the decision with regard to the change of the constitution. Then I just wanted to point out that at the moment the association is drawing up a new constitution, and that the amended constitution contained a provision in terms of which the Minister will have the final say regarding further amendments to the constitution. I consider this a particularly important provision because at this very moment, in a period when relations problems can very easily arise in our national set up, we need to have someone who can keep a careful check in the final instance that nothing goes wrong with drawing up such a constitution, particularly not something that may disturb relations in this country.

It has come to my attention that there are certain people who see the protective measures with regard to nurses, which are now being introduced into the legislation, as a step towards the socialization of health services as far as the provision of medicines is concerned. I believe that, particularly in the light of the statements made by the hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech, we can point out with authority that the powers that are being granted to nurses, are very limited and that there is definitely no idea of the hon. the Minister now being involved in a process of socialization since he is now allocating certain powers or duties to the nursing profession.

It is true that there are shortages of medical practitioners and pharmacists in certain areas. In certain areas health services must be performed without there even being a doctor or a pharmacist available. In circumstances of that nature a nurse should very definitely be used. It should also be noted that the amendments indicate very clearly—the hon. the Minister did in fact explain this during his Second Reading speech—that medicines that can be handled by a nurse, cover a very limited field, and that these are medicines that are prepackaged and that the instructions are very clearly stated on the packaging. I believe that anyone who feels uneasy about this amendment, in particular people in the pharmaceutical profession who are afraid that the State is undermining or monopolizing the pharmaceutical profession, have no reason to be afraid of anything remotely resembling socialization.

If the Health Services Act is not directed at this, the amendment that appears in the legislation under discussion, is not at all dangerous to the pharmaceutical profession in any respect. I believe that the provision in the relevant clause is exclusively aimed at granting the necessary protection to nurses, protection that they do not have at the moment.

Therefore, it is a very great privilege for me to support the Second Reading of this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, as a new boy might I at the outset say how much I appreciate the kindness that the officials and the entire staff of Parliament has shown me. I refer particularly to the fact that when one is lost in this building it is very comforting to see those elderly gentlemen in grey who are there to show one the way and put one back on the right track.

Sir, it would be remiss of me if I did not refer to those men who represented my constituency before me. I refer particularly to Mr. Douglas Mitchell, a man who I believe made a terrific contribution to South Africa, to the late Mr. Dutchie van Coller with whom I was associated as a MPC and lastly, to Mr. Mias van der Westhuyzen, the man I unseated at the last election. Each and every one of these was a perfect gentleman. I hope I shall be able to keep up this tradition.

It is unusual for a member to make his maiden speech on a Bill that is before the House. I am aware of the responsibility that has been given to me and as this piece of legislation is not controversial I believe it is in order for me to go ahead.

As the position stands, every registered nurse must belong to the Nursing Association. The main reason, as we see it, for this Bill is to alleviate the administrative problem that the Nursing Association has had. I also believe that the possibility exists that where a nurse is not practising and is not earning a living, to pay her subscription to the association, however small it may be, must create a certain amount of hardship. We support this Bill, but in supporting it we do believe that an improvement can be made to clause 1. I refer here in particular to the state of emergency or the state of disaster situation which I think we all accept is on the increase in South Africa. We in the NRP feel that provision must be made for this type of situation when it arises. If such a situation should arise I am sure that there will be nurses who are not practising and who therefore do not belong to the association who will volunteer their services. What is their position going to be? I shall refer to this matter later in the Committee Stage and possibly we shall move an amendment.

As far as clause 2 is concerned we see it as a distinct improvement, a step in the right direction. May I be so bold as to say that it is merely normalizing the position as it exists today. In this respect I refer in particular to the country districts in which the major portion of my constituency falls. We all know that a district sister, when visiting her patient, examines her patient and then reports back to the doctor who in turn prescribes. But the doctor can only prescribe on the diagnosis made by that sister. So what are we really doing? I believe we are really giving the nurse the due and just recognition that she really deserves. As we see the position, this Bill is at last recognizing the fact that registered nurses are responsible people and, accordingly, it is high time we accepted the fact.

We also feel that the Bill must be supported because the very concept of community care and health centres has to rely on the trained and registered nurse. They are, after all, going to be the very backbone of this concept. We all know there is a serious shortage of doctors for all race groups and what better way to alleviate the labour of the doctors than by giving nurses these powers and also giving them the right to act within the law?

There is another matter which I believe needs consideration. Who, after all, is going to benefit from these provisions? It is going to be our aged and indigent people. On that basis alone it deserves all the support we can give it.

We in the NRP shall support the Bill and in the Committee Stage we shall ask the hon. the Minister to consider an amendment to improve it.

Mr. Speaker, as a newcomer to this House, and with my maiden speech linked to this Nursing Amendment Bill—and I can assure you that the prospect of a maiden speech can wear one out for an entire day—I can assure hon. members that I think that the previous speaker, the hon. member for South Coast, and myself are both in need of nurses ourselves tonight. I want to congratulate the hon. member for South Coast on his maiden speech and wish him everything of the best in this House. I can assure hon. members that I am convinced that if this is the quality of the contributions that the hon. member for South Coast is going to make in this House, he is going to be a great asset to this House. I want to congratulate him and wish him everything of the best for the future.

It is not always easy to refer to one’s constituency, but since the hon. member for Paarl referred to his constituency as the second most beautiful constituency, I cannot but tell the hon. members of the other three provinces, i.e. the Orange Free State, the Cape Province and Natal, that the Losberg constituency in the Transvaal is in actual fact a Transvaal in miniature. If I refer to the Potchefstroom constituency in jest, the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Police, I can almost say that we fall under the Transvaal. All sorts of farming is carried out in my constituency, there are training centres and such on the Potchefstroom side, and therefore I am entitled to say that everything that is represented in the Transvaal, can come from Losberg and Potchefstroom.

The residents of Potchefstroom are in a particularly honoured position. The Mooi River is the boundary between the constituencies of Potchefstroom and Losberg. On the eastern side is the Losberg constituency and on the west, Potchefstroom; therefore the residents are in the fortunate position of being able to live on the Potchefstroom side of the river and have a Minister for their MP, or do themselves the favour of moving to Losberg and being represented by a good MP there.

I have known the hon. the Minister of Police for about 20 years already. In actual fact, I learnt my politics under his wing, and I can assure hon. members that I have a great deal of appreciation for the example that he as a person set for me. On this occasion I want to pay tribute to him for what he means to me and to the community of Potchefstroom as the representative of that constituency in this House.

The Le Grange family has very close ties with the Losberg constituency because the hon. the Minister Le Grange’s father is buried more or less in the centre of this constituency and that is why one will always want to come back to it. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that he will always be welcome there.

Tonight I should like to devote myself to a subject that I am not very knowledgeable about, but it is a subject that means a great deal to me, viz. the handicapped, particularly the mentally handicapped. Whereas in the past it was generally the psychiatrist and the psychiatric nursing staff who were concerned with the observation, diagnosis, treatment and care in institutions of such children, in the past few years it has also become the sphere of people who are concerned with special education. The idea, an incorrect one, that mentally retarded children should always be put away into institutions, is something of the past. At the moment, a fair amount of provision is also being made for educative teaching. Although it has not yet been established with any degree of certainty how much success is being achieved, it has already become clear that encouraging progress has been made in certain teaching circles. Nor is there any question of an established teaching tradition as yet.

An article appeared in the South African nursing magazine in November 1977 written by Inger Nurse, which basically dealt with the Down’s syndrome. It is an informative article and deals with work groups consisting of mothers with young children suffering from Down’s syndrome. It points out that this is a practical way of helping such parents to support the child during the critical developmental phase. Emphasis is laid upon group interaction and mutual aid. After participating in such a work group, it was discovered that such mothers accept the situation and assimilate it and that they now gain more enjoyment out of working with their young children.

Before I take a brief look at the world of experience of the seriously mentally retarded child, or as others put it, the children of the shadow or the children of heaven, I should like to read a little poem. Unfortunately the author is unknown. The title is “Heaven’s Very Special Child”, and it reads as follows—

However, the beautiful words of this poem only make an impression on religious parents after they have been granted mercy from Above and after the worst shock has passed. Religious parents are also people of flesh and blood, however. They are also people who drive fast because, after all, it is only other people who are involved in accidents, and they are also people who think that seriously retarded children are only born to other homes. Within a few years a callous forms over the heart and the feelings of these parents and they are no longer hurt so much or so often. Then they can no longer imagine life without this gift from heaven. It is probably only now that they become susceptible to the comforting words of the poem that I have just quoted, “Heaven’s Very Special Child”.

There are various institutions that grant aid to mentally retarded children. Amongst others, there are the Alta du Toit in Bellville, Lettie Fouché in Bloemfontein, Yonder in Kimberley and E. S. le Grange in Potchefstroom. At these institutions these children are taught to write, to count up to 20 at least, to work with money and to read a little, even if it is only to be able to distinguish which are the public facilities for men and which are meant for women. Often, however, it takes the staff there many years to teach the children these things.

I have already referred to the E. S. le Grange school, and I should like to deal with this in greater detail because it is a school situated in my constituency. This school was named after the first chairwoman of the school committee, who was one of the founders of the school. I am actually incorrect in referring to the founder of the school in the past tense, because that chairwoman, Mrs. E. S. le Grange, is still alive. She is already 91 years old and is living in Pretoria at the moment. She is still very sound, in mind and body, and she often visits the school. She is also the mother of Mr. Louis le Grange, the hon. the Minister of Police. In this respect we see that the Le Grange family has left deep traces in our community. I feel free to ask the hon. the Minister of Police to convey the greetings and good wishes of the E. S. le Grange school in the Losberg constituency to his mother, who is much appreciated.

After the children at this school have reached a certain age, those who are capable, are taught certain skills. For instance, they are taught mat weaving, the items are sold and in that way they also provide a service to the community, whilst in the nature of things they also make a partial contribution towards their own upkeep.

This brings me to a brief request that I should like to make. I think I can address it to a wider circle than simply to the hon. members in this House. I should like to include the Press and even the public here. My request is that we should open our hearts at all times to the handicapped in particular. After all, we have all been created in God’s likeness, and do we not all have our place here under the sun? How dark it would have been for them if there were not people whose task it is to bring light into this darkness.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill which is before the House at the moment deals with nurses and authorizes nurses to prescribe medicine. It is a special privilege for me to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on his first prescription to this House, for what a splendid prescription it was! The prescription was quite comprehensive; the hon. member spoke about animals, mountains, the area where he lives, Ministers, the Le Grange family and the handicapped. That was his principal theme. Any person who has a love for the handicapped and who devotes an important part of his life to their interests, and who is able to speak with eloquence and compassion about, for example, the Down syndrome among children—which I also see in my profession—is a person whom I hold in very high esteem. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Losberg on his maiden speech, and in the second place I want to thank him on behalf of the handicapped of South Africa for having chosen them as the subject of his first speech here today.

†I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation in his Second Reading speech on this Bill which amends the Nursing Act. His speech made many things in the Bill a little clearer to me as to what is intended with the Bill. I should first like to deal briefly with clause 1. Our spokesman on this side of the House, the hon. member for Hillbrow, has already touched on this. In this clause it is quite clear who can belong to the Nursing Association. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister what is meant by the reference to people working “within the Republic”. These people are the only people who can belong to the South African Nursing Association. Does this mean the Republic as we understand it? I ask this because there are areas which may be excluded. I think it will be easy for the hon. the Minister to clarify this, and I should like to have some reassurance about what is meant by the phrase “within the Republic”. The clause makes it quite clear as to who can belong to the Nursing Association. The profession itself wants the enrolled nurses and the professional nurses to be compulsory members of the Association. This Association differs from the Medical Association, because membership of the Medical Association is voluntary. However, I understand and respect the reasons which the nurses have. The clause also provides who may elect the board that decides on the functions of the Association. When we come to clause 1(b), however, we have certain reservations.

*The hon. the Minister said—

Of course, this is something which we on this side of the House support—

†I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will concede that if there is an amendment to the constitution, his being involved in it and vetoing some part of it may just result in that which he is trying to prevent. I should like the hon. the Minister to give the House some indication of what he thinks may occur to cause him to act to prevent some racial problems from occurring. I should be very grateful if he could do that because, as the hon. member for Hill-brow has said, we on this side intend moving an amendment in the Committee Stage.

*Clause 2 is very important, I believe. I quite agree with the hon. the Minister and with the intention of this clause to allow the nurses to be used to provide those services to the people in areas where there is a shortage of medical staff or pharmacists. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that these services were limited to community services and included antenatal and post-natal care with regard to confinements, immunization, etc. This is quite acceptable to this side of the House. However, the hon. the Minister also spoke about headache and similar indispositions.

†What I am trying to say is that when one reads clause 2, it is not clear if the nurse is permitted to prescribe or only to administer the medicines as the hon. the Minister has explained. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me if for example, the nurse will be allowed to prescribe schedule 7 drugs. I ask this because in the proposed section 38A(c) I read—

I want to know if the nurse will now have the opportunity to prescribe drugs up to schedule 7 whereas a pharmacist, who is trained for this, can only prescribe up to schedule 3. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s explanation in this regard.

There are some other questions I want to ask the hon. the Minister in order to understand what he means and to satisfy quite a few people. I should like to know whether the voluntary professionals like the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa and the Pharmaceutical Control Council together with the South African Pharmacy Board and Medical Control Council, which are statutory bodies, have been asked their opinion about this and if they approve. I have information that they have not approved and are not in favour of the Bill. If that is true, I should like to know why they are opposed to the proposed amendments to the Act.

Does the hon. the Minister believe that the nurses who will be performing these duties and who will have had, as I understand it, two years’ extra training, will be adequately trained? The hon. the Minister has indicated that they will be controlled, but will they be controlled in all situations? Will it not be the case that at times there will not be the necessary control with the result that they will be doing work for which they have not been trained?

One wonders whether sections 12, 23, 24 and 35(1) of the Medicines and Related Substances Control Act, 1965, do not already make provision for this.

The hon. the Minister referred to the question of indemnity. This is something which causes me concern. What happens if a nurse is sued by somebody who is of the opinion that he has not been treated properly and that there has been malpractice? I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us in what way such indemnity is being increased. If he can satisfy us in this regard, we shall feel much happier.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain the phrase “whenever the services of a medical practitioner or pharmacist are not available.” Will a nurse in a day hospital—I know that fantastic work is done in such hospitals—be allowed to take over the work of the doctor or the pharmacist if there is a shortage? Let us assume that a day hospital needs five medical practitioners and five pharmacists but all of a sudden there are only four medical practitioners and four pharmacists. Will a nurse now be able to take over from either the medical practitioner or the pharmacist?

I want to support the Bill but there is one further problem and again I refer to the proposed section 38A. On page 4, line 1, we read “after consultation”. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would accept an amendment to substitute the words “with agreement” for the words “after consultation”. I should like to know what the position is in regard to “consultation”. Will the Director-General merely consult and proceed irrespective of what they say? I appreciate that this may not necessarily be the case but I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will accept such an amendment—“met toestemming”. I think that will help us a lot.

I therefore should like to say that much in the Bill is of great advantage. I should just like it to be made quite clear so that all of us can understand exactly what this will do. I believe that, if the nurses are allowed in areas where there is nobody else to perform these duties, it will be of great benefit to the health of the patients of our country.

Mr. Speaker, there appears to be unanimity with regard to the bulk of this legislation. It seems as if there is a little suspicion on the part of the Opposition with regard to the provision that the hon. the Minister must grant his approval to amendments to the constitution of the Nursing Association. In my opinion, the legislation under discussion is serving a very good purpose and, other than the hon. member for Hillbrow, who has said that he supports the legislation with reservations, I want to say “I support the amended Bill wholeheartedly and without any reservations”. It is easy for me to support it because it protects the nursing profession and makes this profession a better and safer one for them. The introduction of the new section 38A protects the nursing profession by legalizing services provided by the nurses, services that were performed under the strict surveillance of medical practitioners in the past, but were not in accordance with the Act and therefore entailed a risk for the nurses. Therefore, duties that were very often carried out by nurses in the past, are now being legalized and are becoming the legal duties of a nurse. Even though the Opposition does not agree wholeheartedly with this, the introduction of the new section 38A and the addition of subsection (3) to section 38(1) are amendments that make the nursing profession a better profession. Even the required approval by the Minister of any amendment to the constitution of the Nursing Association, which in actual fact falls directly under the control of the Department of Health, in my opinion, serves as a support for those nurses because it makes their association and profession more secure, even in their group context and with regard to one another.

The shortage of manpower in South Africa means that greater competition is arising amongst professions. A general shortage of workers presents the opportunity of picking and choosing without any fear that the supply will be less than the demand, no matter what employment is chosen. At the moment one can choose what one wants to do in South Africa and one can be sure that there will be work for one. In this respect, the nursing services are no exception. There are vacant posts just as there are vacant posts in practically all other spheres of skilled employment in the Public Service and elsewhere. This gives rise to competition between the nursing profession and other professions in South Africa.

Now there are those who unrealistically believe that the shortage of nurses can largely be ascribed to the policy of the Government. It is even alleged that eliminating so-called apartheid in hospitals would alleviate the shortage of nurses. I think the question that arises, is whether we would not be doing much more to alleviate the condition by making the nursing profession more attractive and more acceptable. In the nature of things, even though it is a noble profession, is not the easiest of all professions. There are shifts that have to be worked, sometimes with long hours, which voluntarily sometimes become even longer due to the shortages of staff; weekend work whilst others enjoy the opportunity to escape and the pleasures which the weekend offers; the tension under which nurses often have to work with very sick people—yes, sometimes they even experience the consequences of working with moody heart surgeons. There are also many other deviations from the normal obligations of work. These are all characteristics which can count against the nursing profession in the competition between professions. That is why we must always try to take all possible measures for making the nursing profession an attractive and protected profession in South Africa.

In view of the provisions of the Bill, everyone in the House must surely agree that we are moving in the direction that I have indicated, if we accept these amendments. Therefore, I am pleased to grant my support to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech last week, particularly in regard to the fact that the nursing profession and the provisions of this Bill will not allow for any racial differences to interfere in the nursing profession. Of course one welcomes this, particularly in a profession like nursing. It is reassuring. Indeed, there was a prelude to this when the Nursing Association held a meeting way back in January 1981 after which a Press report appeared in The Natal Mercury under the heading “Nurses’ Association goes multiracial”. The report reads—

That was a prelude to it and the hon. the Minister in his introductory comments confirmed that situation. Looking at the Bill, however, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister a specific question. The hon. member for Parktown also mentioned this in passing, in general terms. I refer to the proposed new section 38(1)(a), which reads as follows—

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us in specific terms what in fact is meant by—

I believe this is very important and that we have to be very clear in respect of our definition. The reason why I ask this—and I want to raise a particular issue with the hon. the Minister on this occasion—I believe has to be put very clearly. I want to know how, if that is so, the hon. the Minister or the profession can reconcile that situation with the fact that the Nursing Association is telling the nurses of kwaZulu that they are not allowed to belong to the S.A. Nursing Association. Nobody, not even the hon. the Minister, can suggest—no matter what the intentions of the Government may be—that there can be any confusion about whether or not kwaZulu is at the present time part of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically—as this Bill stipulates that it relates to people practising their profession within the Republic—whether it includes the nurses of kwaZulu. I believe this is very important and we do need some clarity on that because, as I say, I find it very difficult, with this specific provision in the Bill, to understand the situation which exists at the present time in respect of Black nurses who are practising in kwaZulu. The situation is, as I have said, that they have been told by the Nursing Association that they cannot belong to the S.A. Nursing Association. So, it does not square in any way. It is totally contradictory of the spirit of the hon. the Minister’s introductory remarks and also, in fact, of the wording of this particular Bill which we are discussing here this evening.

The history of this matter is also very interesting. We know that when the South African Government entered into its agreement with the kwaZulu Government in relation to the taking over of health services by kwaZulu they took over Chapters I, II, III and V of the Nursing Act, but omitted Chapter IV, which deals with the S.A. Nursing Association. I want to know what the purpose of that was. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister something else. I know he has had representations made to him by the kwaZulu Government for an amendment to that agreement in order to …

What has that got to do with this Bill?

It has a lot to do with this Bill.

What you have just mentioned has not anything to do with this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with an amendment relating to the S.A. Nursing Association. It has everything to do with the Bill because I want to know why it was that Chapter IV of the Nursing Act was left out. That chapter deals with the S.A. Nursing Association. Why was it left out in regard to the agreement entered into between the South African Government and the kwaZulu Government way back in 1977, when the kwaZulu Government took over responsibility for health services in kwaZulu? I think this is very important.

If one looks at the action of kwaZulu it appears that they have asked specifically that their members be allowed to belong to the S.A. Nursing Association. The Nursing Association has said that membership of kwaZulu nurses of that Association would be illegal. The kwaZulu Government has indicated very clearly that it does not want a separate nursing association, that kwaZulu is part of the Republic of South Africa and that therefore its nurses should be on the same footing and of the same status as nurses practising within the rest of the Republic of South Africa.

This is very important. The matter was discussed at considerable length in the kwaZulu Assembly earlier this year, and the history was sketched of the negotiations which had taken place both with the Nursing Association and with the hon. the Minister. The Minister of Health in the kwaZulu Assembly sketched the problem, and said that kwaZulu nurses were now being deprived of membership of the S.A. Nursing Association. They referred to the fact that—

I am quoting now from the speech made by the kwaZulu Minister of Health, his policy speech—

That is this hon. Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation—

I am quoting verbatim from the policy speech of the hon. the Minister’s counterpart in the kwaZulu Assembly.

It is untrue.

The hon. the Minister says “It is untrue.” Whether it is true or not, the hon. the Minister must clear up this point because it is causing considerable concern, not only among the Black nurses of kwaZulu, but also among the nursing profession of other races in the Natal area. The position is, simply, that these people are being excluded. There is further evidence here of correspondence with the Nursing Association, telling them to go ahead and form their own association because kwaZulu nurses cannot obtain membership of the S.A. Nursing Association. The matter, as I say, caused considerable concern in the kwaZulu Assembly. I want to quote further what the hon. the Minister’s counterpart there said. He concluded his speech on this subject by saying—

This was widely publicized. Obviously he spoke with great feeling. If the Nursing Act is going to be interpreted as it should be, it must surely be obligatory for every nurse in South Africa to be a member of the S.A. Nursing Association. Is the hon. the Minister then going to countenance a situation where Zulu nurses will have to belong not only to the S.A. Nursing Association—because that is what this legislation says—but are also going to be forced in some way to belong to their own association? If that is so, it is certainly a cruel deceit and it certainly goes against the whole principle of the association being non-racial. This would certainly seem to be a racial implication.

The proposed constitution which the hon. the Minister is going to have the authority to vet and of which I have a copy in draft form says that “Republic of South Africa shall not include the area of any self-governing Black State”. If the hon. the Minister is going to consider that constitution, he must get an explanation from the S.A. Nursing Association of how they interpret the words “self-governing Black State”. Does that refer to Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei or do they in their innocence perhaps think that that can also refer to kwaZulu which is not a self-governing Black State?

Venda is an independent State.

Yes, that is what I am saying, but I think one must make it very clear that when they speak of “self-governing Black States” they are not in their innocence mistakenly thinking that they can include kwaZulu, because it is not a self-governing Black State. It is quite different.

Of course it is self-governing.

Is the hon. member suggesting that it is on the same footing as Venda, Bophuthatswana and Transkei?

Venda is independent. Do you not know that? kwaZulu is self-governing.

Right. That makes it even worse. Then the hon. the Minister’s colleague is saying that the terms used by the Nursing Association in their draft constitution will therefore exclude kwaZulu, because he says that is a self-governing Black State. I say kwaZulu is a part of the Republic of South Africa. In the Bill that we are discussing now it says in very clear terms “nurses practising in the Republic of South Africa”. This is a point that is very important indeed and that has got to be cleared up. I ask the hon. the Minister to clear up this point in the most explicit terms in his reply to the Second Reading debate. If the interpretation of the hon. member for Klip River is correct, and if that is the interpretation that is accepted by the Nursing Association, then they are already in conflict with the law. This will then result in a totally confusing situation in hospitals in Durban, Pietermaritzburg and elsewhere when with the interchange of nurses, the constant movement of nurses, perhaps from the kwaZulu area into the urban areas, they are going to have to belong to two associations. This is going to lead to a good deal of confusion. It is certainly not in the interests of the nursing profession as a whole and it is a matter which, as I have said, is causing concern to the White nurses as well as to the Black nurses in Natal. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister to deal specifically with this point when he replies.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reply to the debate, and I shall begin with the hon. member for Hillbrow. The hon. member said, inter alia (Hansard 14 August, col. 1041)—

I recommend to the hon. member to go and read my Hansard. Nowhere in my Second Reading speech did I use the words “a shortage of nurses”. The hon. member should also read the Hansard of my speech in the Censure debate. Nowhere in my Hansard do the words “a serious shortage of nurses” appear. I raise this here because the morning after the hon. member had made his speech, The Cape Times did attribute these words to me and said—

The next day I wrote a letter to the political reporter and indicated that I had never used those words in that context. I also included a copy of my speech, marking the sections concerned. I am still awaiting a correction. That, Sir, is the kind of reporting to which one is exposed, although I am now beginning to be accustomed to it because I have often experienced it.

Since I am under your protection in this House, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the hon. member is speaking on the basis of what he read in the newspaper. However, he could have read my Hansard. He, too, knows that I did not make those statements. In no speech I have made in this House have I said that there is no shortage of nurses, and I want to state very clearly this evening that those words must not be attributed to me. If hon. members wish to attack me, they must attack me on the basis of the truth and not with reference to fabrications or what their newspaper friends write to create sensation out of something which I supposedly said and did not say. [Interjections.] I hear a muttering there, but the nearest I came to that statement was when I asked the hon. member for Parktown whether 90% occupation of posts in the Cape constituted a crisis. In reply he asked what the position was in the Transvaal, and I said that I was still coming to the Transvaal. In the meantime I want to know whether 90% occupation of posts in the Cape constituted a crisis. Thus far he has not replied to me. That is the nearest I came to the word “crisis”. I want to state this very clearly because it is very important, since when my vote is discussed we must discuss this matter without emotion. We must come forward with the facts and quote correctly what has been said by hon. members or by myself in this House. I do not expect this of the hon. member for Hillbrow because usually he prepares his speeches, but apparently he was dragged into the debate because the hon. member for Parktown was not able to be present. However, I advise him not simply to take part in a debate without first reading Hansard and ensuring that he keeps to the truth.

I now wish to refer to a few statements made by the hon. member. He said that he supported clause 1(a).

†However, he has some difficulty with paragraph (b) because why, he asks, should a statutory body not have the right to control its own affairs? Let us look at the Act of 1944. In the Act of 1978 this body was for the first time given the right to have its own constitution. Section 17(2) of the Act—this is the old Act that has been repealed—states—

In 1944 already it was agreed that the Minister would approve of the constitution. In terms of the 1957 Act they could not make their own constitution. In the 1978 Act they were for the first time given the right to make their own constitution, a right which was given to them by this side of the House. And even when they could make their own constitution they still, by agreement, had to submit the regulations to the Minister first. It is therefore no new concept that the Minister should approve of the constitution. Other hon. members have also asked for what reason the Minister should have some say in the constitution.