I move, as an unopposed motion—

That the House at its rising on Thursday, 23rd March, adjourn until Monday, 3rd April, at 2.15 p.m.

Agreed to.

I want to refer to clause 7 in Chapter II and say to the hon. the Minister, that I was disappointed yesterday afternoon to find, after the representations I had made about the exclusion of Coloured persons from the right to obtain permits for prospecting, that the only reply that he could give me was to refer to the question as to whether or not I had taken advantage of the sitting of a select committee. May I just say with great deference and due respect to the hon. the Minister, that the place where these matters are to be raised and dealt with finally is Parliament—this very House—and it is no answer on his part, when a member raises a point in Parliament, to suggest that because a select committee has been sitting and because that select committee has come to a unanimous decision, no discussion should take place nor any criticism levelled here and that we should just accept what has been recommended in toto or lock, stock and barrel. The second portion of the hon. the Minister’s reply was to the effect that Coloured persons were going to receive more under this Bill than they have been receiving under the existing law. I want to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to explain in some detail or as far as he possibly can exactly what the differences are in the facilities granted to Coloured persons under the present Bill, as distinct from the provisions which apply to them under the old law. The hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that Coloured persons may get prospecting licences on State-owned land, on land owned by Coloured persons and on land which falls in Coloured areas, but I think it should go further than that, and I ask the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that he has made concessions to a certain extent—we are still waiting to hear to what extent—if he will not consider the question of deleting all references to Coloured persons. I can see no reason whatsoever, why one should have any type of restriction based on a person’s colour or his race classification, in the prospecting for or the discovery of precious metals, base metals, minerals, precious stones and rare earths. I think the future of this country is going to depend to a larger extent upon discoveries which may still be made. Untold hidden wealth lies beneath the surface of South Africa. I would ask the hon. the Minister, therefore, whether even at this stage he will not agree to the deletion of all references to Coloured persons, or if he will not agree to that, then at least to make considerably more concessions to Coloured persons than are envisaged under the present Bill.

As far as State land is concerned, the position is that a Bantu may not prospect on such land. As far as Coloured persons are concerned, they may prospect on State land in the Cape Province. Therefore there are approximately 1,800,0000 morgen of State land in the Cape Province on which Coloured persons may prospect freely. There is a restriction as far as other provinces are concerned and the question is why Coloured persons should not obtain the right to prospect there too. The fact of the matter is that as far as the other provinces are concerned, State land in such provinces is situated close to the Bantu homelands. The question is why the right is given to Coloured persons in the other provinces and not to the Bantu there because they have a stronger claim to that right than the Coloured persons there. The hon. member also referred to the rights of Coloured persons as far as the diamond industry was concerned. Even in this case one has a difference; they have mining rights in the Cape Province but not in the Transvaal. We feel that if this right to State land, as regards base minerals, had to be extended to State lard in the north, objections would be raised by prospectors in the north if that right was to be granted to Coloured persons. Consequently I feel that that right cannot be extended to the north.

As regards alienated State land, the position is that when Coloured persons or Coloured associations are the owners of such land in the Cape Province they may prospect on such land. This has now been extended to the north. This may also happen there. Even in those cases where a White person is the owner of alienated State lard he may transfer it to a Coloured person if he prefers to do so. As regards such land he is therefore free to do so. Then there still is private land. As far as base minerals are concerned the right to prospect on such private land in any of the four provinces and to exploit it without any form of legal authorization is vested in the holder of such mineral rights. Those rights may also safely be transferred to a third person. He may also transfer them to a Coloured person. There is no restriction. A prospecting permit or mining lease for the prospecting for and mining of base minerals on such land is not a legal requirement. A prospecting permit must only be taken out in respect of prospecting for a precious metal, such as gold, on private land. As far as we know there are no precious metals in the Cape Province. Therefore this restriction as regards precious metals and as regards Coloured persons is virtually meaningless because precious metals are not found in the Cape Province. As far as the employment of Coloured persons by the holder of a permit or the holder of a prospecting right is concerned, such a person may employ Coloured persons at any time under any of these circumstances. Therefore practically the only difference is that a Coloured person may not prospect on State land in the other provinces and that he may not prospect for precious metals. I therefore feel that as far as these other rights are concerned, there is virtually no discrimination between the races.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will answer this question: If a Coloured person applies for a permit to prospect for gold on a piece of ground owned by a White person, will that Coloured person be granted the permit to prospect on the White man’s piece of ground in one of the provinces excluding the Cape, of course, with the consent of the owner?

No. In terms of the Act he cannot.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 91:

Mr. Chairman, the vicinity of Phalaborwa in my constituency is a proclaimed mining area, but at the same time that land is also a proclaimed soil conservation area. There are many cattle farmers in that vicinity. These people have complained to me on various occasions and I am pleased to see that provision is being made here to grant recognition in respect of fencing, etc. We find, however, that many of the holders of claims as well as lessees destroy the surface of the land to an alarming extent. I myself have carried out inspections on a few farms. I mention the farm called “Square” belonging to Mr. Piet Bosman, the farm called “Paul” belonging to Roberts Construction and the farm called “Pompey”. Mr. Chairman, if that area is a soil conservation area there must surely be co-operation. These people should not be allowed to destroy the surface in this way. The farmers leased the grazing rights from the State in terms of an earlier Act a number of years ago. These people also have certain rights. They pay for their grazing but their grazing is nevertheless being destroyed in this manner. I want to go further. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that proper safety measures will be applied as regards the digging of holes which are left uncovered. They are dangerous and very deep. The people’s stock graze there. They fall into those holes and perish. Those holes are a danger to human beings and animals.

I think the hon. member is totally out of order. That matter does not fall under this Bill.

Subsection (8) refers to fencing. Mr. Chairman, in addition the side note of this clause reads “Surface rights for agriculture or aforestation”.

Which subsection is that?

I am referring to clause 91.

The hon. member may proceed. We shall hear what it is about.

Mr. Chairman, it is my duty to promote the interests of those people. We cannot continue in this way and I am very pleased to see that provision is being made for them in this Bill so that an improvement may be effected in this regard. When one travels in that area one also notices many other things which are happening there. I am again speaking about surface rights for agriculture. Subsection (9) lays down which roads the prospectors may use. Many of those prospectors have no respect for a farmer’s fencing. They cut the wire fencing of a farmer, pass over his veld and dig a hole there. I trust that the hon. the Minister will see to it that there will be proper supervision, and that he will instruct the mining commissioner to exercise proper supervision over occurrences of this nature and that our soil and the properties of farmers will not continue to be destroyed in this ruthless manner.

Mr. Chairman, actually another Act, namely the Mines and Works Act, and not this legislation, governs the aspects mentioned by the hon. member in regard to soil conservation, the safeguarding of land for animals and related problems. I want to suggest that the hon. member should let me have those particulars. Certain protection is afforded in legislation. If he would let me have those particulars I shall bring them to the notice of the mining inspector so that he may ascertain whether there is any contravention of the provisions concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday during the Second Reading of this Bill I indicated to the hon. the Minister that it seemed to me that perhaps a consequential amendment was necessary to complete the work which this clause seeks to do. I suggested that because in the original Act in section 5 which lays down the duties of the Registrar, subsection (3) provides only for a single registration, in my opinion. In other words, when the first particulars are submitted to the Registrar by the officer holding an inquest, according to the wording of subsection (3) which I would like to read just now, I believe that the registration is then complete. I see no provision for the handling of the second report which should come from that officer. Subsection (3) of section 5 provides as follows:

It does not say “forms”. It is in the singular—

Now in clause 1 of the amending Bill which we are now discussing, subsection (3 ) of this new section 13A reads that—

In other words, it would appear to me possible that the procedure of registering the death provisionally and issuing a provisional death certificate, might well be in the terms of the original act all that is required from the Registrar. Unless the Minister has some other particular aspect to put to us I would believe that a consequential amendment is necessary to amend section 5 of the original Act to provide for the insertion of these extra particulars.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention that I brought this matter to the attention of the law advisers and that they assured me that they had gone into this aspect of the Bill very carefully, even when drafting it, and that this preliminary registration of a death would actually be of service to those people who are concerned only with the death as such. They also assured me that it would in no way affect the eventual second registration of the death and its other causes.

While I am speaking I may also say that another matter has been mentioned to me in private, namely that in the sequestration of estates and their liquidation, and particularly in their distribution, it is the position under our legislation that it may happen in practice that someone who is an heir may be an accessory to the death of a person. That aspect has also been gone into and I am told that it can be covered and is in fact covered. That is the reason why it has not been provided for in this Bill but under the Act relating to the Department of Justice, which deals with such cases. It follows, therefore, that although the objections and misgivings of the hon. member for Umlazi are quite justified, I may readily assure him that those implications will not arise.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. Minister can give the Committee some indication as to what length of time does elapse in an average case between the death of a person and the date when the cause of death can in fact be determined. One would imagine that the cause of death could be determined within approximately seven or eight days after a post mortem. If this is so this amendment would not seem to be so necessary. Circumstances may, however, be different. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of the period of time involved.

I also put that question to the law advisers, and they tell me that the period of validity of such a registration would be determined by the date of the final report indicating the real cause of death. In other words, Sir, there will be a time lapse, and one cannot determine that the time lapse will be for seven days, 14 days, three weeks or even one month. The lapse of time will be determined by the time it takes to make the second registration after the completion of all investigations into the cause of the death concerned. It will thus be applied to the clause as such and the second registration.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading Debate yesterday I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that the English definition and the Afrikaans definition in clause 28 of the principal Act may perhaps be interpreted as not meaning the same thing. The Minister was also asked whether he did not consider the penalty provision contained in the amendment as being particularly severe, even though all of us were concerned about the health of our animals and did not want our livestock to be exposed to infectious diseases. We should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether he will make any recommendations in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain that the use of the two words in the principal Act, namely “move” in the English version and “verwyder” in the Afrikaans version, is correct. That is how it should read for it to be correct in law. As regards the penalties which the hon. member said were too severe, I want to point out to him that we must take every care to keep infectious disease out of the country. For example, if we should be negligent and allow foot-and-mouth disease to break out among our herds of sheep, the losses which the farmers of South Africa and the country itself will suffer within the space of a single year will run into several millions of rands. The reason for that is that we have certain types of virus in South Africa that do not occur in England and in other countries. This penalty provision with its heavy fine is directed against offenders who do not comply with the quarantine regulations. It is not directed against those unfortunate people who have diseases among their stock. It is only directed against offenders.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

I move —

Mr. Speaker, because there are various associations of breeders who have for a long time desired and looked forward to this legislation, I find it a great pleasure to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I find it a pleasure, not only because stock-farming is something which is near to my heart and probably also near to the hearts of many hon. members of this House, but also because our country is suitable for a large number and a large variety of stock breeds in spite of all sorts of natural limitations. I think that there are very few breeds which have not found a habitat somewhere in our country and which cannot adapt themselves readily to our conditions.

Economic stock-farming, however, is to a large extent dependent on the quality of our livestock. Competition is too keen to allow one to think that we shall be able to achieve success if we keep animals with a low production level or which yield inferior milk or meat or wool. In other words, the inferior animal is only a boarder on the farmer’s farm which makes his farming activities less efficient.

For the ordinary farmer it is essential that good breeding stock should come from the herds of breeders of pedigree livestock because such breeding stock represent the basic material for improving his own herds. That is the reason why the State-—in the interests of the stock-farmer in general and also in the eventual interests of the food consumer—has concerned itself indirectly with the registration of pedigree stock over a period of many years. I cannot describe the State’s contribution in any other terms, because my Department is there simply to give guidance to and not to manage the affairs of the breeders of pedigree stock. Indeed, they do that themselves. They are responsible people who are very keen themselves to maintain high standards and to see to it that their integrity can never be called in question.

The standards of our pedigree stock compare so favourably with those of other countries that the possibility of exporting is even being considered. In this respect too—as in many other fields—South Africa has therefore reached maturity. It has herds of outstanding quality which may be regarded as being a national asset. New breeds have even been developed here and one of the amendments now before you relates to that. Changed circumstances have necessitated certain minor amendments to be effected to the Registration of Pedigree Livestock Act. I shall merely mention the most important of these.

Firstly, the amendment of section 1 (2) makes provision for an additional system of upgrading farm livestock. The Karakul Breeders’ Association, which is affiliated to the Stud Book Association, is constantly faced with the challenge of producing furs, by means of selective breeding, which will meet the changing demands of trade dictated by fashion. At times this compels breeders to introduce, contrary to the provisions of the Act, new blood of non-pedigree Karakul sheep. These practices occur in South-West Africa in particular and in order to make it possible to unite breeders in the territory and breeders in the Republic in one association with a single set of rules, it is proposed that the Act be amended so as to make provision for these exceptional conditions. Although there is no doubt whatsoever that the methods of breeding for Karakul fur production are sound, they do differ in principle in certain respects from those of other breeds of farm livestock which are registered with the Association as pure-bred livestock. If the proposed amendment is effected to the principal Act, it will be possible for the Stud Book Association, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Karakul Breeders’ Association to follow a scientifically-founded breeding improvement system for Karakul sheep, which will meet the demands which may from time to time be made on furs because of trade considerations. At the moment this proposed amendment only has Karakul sheep in mind and it is unlikely that it will be extended to other breeds of farm livestock at a later stage.

Secondly, the insertion of a new sub-paragraph (c) in section 8 enables the Stud Book Association to grant recognition to associated societies. In terms of the provisions of section 1 (3) of the Act no newly-bred breed of farm livestock is recognized as such unless it has been bred for at least six generations as a closed group and has been recognized by the Association with the approval of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. Consequently a society which is engaged in developing a new breed, such as the Walrich Merino and the Drakensberger breed of cattle, which is not really a new breed but a very old breed in South Africa, but is not registered in the Stud Book, cannot be affiliated to the Stud Book Association before the breed of farm livestock concerned has been developed up to the prescribed level. Therefore such a society has no claim at any earlier stage of the development of the breed concerned to the Stud Book Association’s specialized assistance and guidance relating to aspects such as keeping acceptable and efficient breeding records, and the Stud Book Association in turn has no supervision over the activities of such a society. Basically it is essential that societies which are developing new breeds of farm livestock should receive the necessary guidance in order that this development may be properly planned from the very outset. In addition it will be possible for the Stud Book Association to ensure without the slightest measure of doubt that the provision, namely that the breed must be bred as a closed group for at least six generations, has been complied with when application is made for such a breed to be recognized. Although the Stud Book Association initially tried to make provision for associated societies in its constitution, this would have been contrary to the provisions of the Act and on that account this amendment is essential.

Thirdly, a new sub-paragraph (d) is inserted in section 8 in order to enable the Stud Book Association to register a prefix or suffix for a breeder and to issue a certificate in respect of such registration. In terms of the Stud Book Association’s constitution and in accordance with traditional practice prefixes and suffixes are already being registered for owners upon payment of an annual fee. It is desired, however, that this power should specially be laid down by legislation and my Department supports this request. In fact, this is not a new principle, because when the old Act was amended in 1951 to make provision for possible autonomous societies, it was provided in section 11 that even members of autonomous societies still had to register their prefixes or suffixes with the S.A. Stud Book Association. Therefore it would appear that the legislature already at that stage supported the central registration of prefixes and suffixes in principle.

In conclusion I just want to mention that the S.A. Stud Book Associaiton and the Stud Book Advisory Board supported the amendments contained in this legislation. As a matter of fact, some of the amendments originated in representations made by these bodies because these bodies deemed it essential to render that assistance and by rendering such assistance being able to exercise the necessary control. This Amendment Bill is therefore intended to facilitate the activities of the S.A. Stud Book Association and to ensure that when one is dealing with new registrations one will be sure that the conditions imposed in respect of the breeding period have been duly complied with. I gladly move the Second Reading of the Bill and I trust that this House will give it its favourable consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill for all the reasons mentioned by the hon. the Minister, i.e. that it originated with the Stud Book Association itself and with those people who should like to form associated societies. In point of fact the Bill deals only with those people, the associated societies, and also changes the definition of farm livestock. I consider the change made in clause 1 (2) particularly important, i.e. that farm livestock will now be considered to be stock bred by a particular system of breeding recognized by the Association with the approval of the Minister. In particular I want to say that in South Africa, despite the fact that we try to keep our stock as pure as possible, outside circumstances frequently demand, particularly in respect of sheep, that one should not merely breed sheep for a particular purpose, but that one should breed them with more than one object in view. There are many people, of course, particularly among the leading farmers, who are not in favour of cross-breeding, but I think it has become essential that we should evote a great deal of attention to that aspect. I think that where such an associated society in South Africa finds it necessary to breed a good dual-purpose sheep, for example, there is no reason why that should not be done, because conditions frequently demand that one should have a good dual-purpose sheep. I have to admit that so far we have not succeeded in breeding a good dual-purpose sheep in South Africa which can be of great value, particularly to the extensive regions, which can yield wool and mutton and which can be resistant to the conditions obtaining there. [Interjection.] Yes, there has been some progress. There is a sheep like the Dorper, for example. There are people who cross the Romney Marsh with the merino, for example, but I do not think that the desired success has been achieved so far. The hon. the Minister mentioned that the consumer is also entitled to buy the best meat and the best milk, and consequently there is indirect interference, as he put it, on the part of the Department and of the State. That is why they take such an interest in it. And the more interest they take, the better for both the producer and the consumer.

As regards the prefixes or suffixes, I think that this is also something which has so far been allowed in practice and which is now merely legalized. I am thinking in particular of well-known breeders who through the years developed some animal through their own method of breeding and who frequently showed that they had done pioneering work. I think it is essential that their names, or the particular directions they followed, should be preserved for posterity by coupling their names to the stock bred by them. People are still speaking of the Minnaar blood or the Dealie merino, or even of the Afrikander cattle. It is frequently essential to have regard to the background when decisions are made on the name to be given to such an animal. I think granting legal recognition to that principle is a firm step forward. For that reason we on this side of the House support this Bill. I think the amendments which are being effected here by the hon. the Minister are sound. We should like to wish the Stud Book Association and the associated societies affiliated with it everything of the best for the future and we hope that they will continue to breed better animals for South Africa.

The hon. Deputy Minister made particular mention of the Karakul farmers. It appears to me as though the hon. the Deputy Minister for South-West Africa Affairs also has something to say in this regard. The Karakul industry has made tremendous progress in the past 15 years, not only in South-West Africa, but also in the north-western Cape and in other parts of the country. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the fact that it is frequently necessary for the Karakul farmers to adopt a different breeding method in order to breed a better animal. In that regard I just want to say that here in South Africa we can never do too much to promote our Karakul industry. Not only does the Karakul industry earn us valuable foreign exchange, but I think the Karakul sheep, as I have seen it in certain parts of the country, is one of the hardiest types of sheep one can farm with. It is one of the races which adapts itself best to our conditions. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wishes to assist that industry by means of this amendment, I can only say that this is a timeous measure and that the Karakul farmers should be given this support.

I am one of the farmers who are very pleased that this Bill is being passed here to-day. The present position is that as far as breeds of cattle are concerned, we have the South African Stud Book Association. Pedigree cattle bred in South-West Africa is registered in the South African stud book, but as far as Karakul sheep are concerned, South-West Africa has its own stud book and the breeders in the Republic have their own stud book. This is an undesirable position. The Karakul industry, as the hon. member for Newton Park said, is a very important industry not only for South-West Africa but also for the north-western part of the Republic. It is a known fact that where we have more than 3 million Karakul sheep in South-West Africa the Republic already has more than 1½ million. As far as pedigree animals are concerned there are certainly more registered Karakul sheep than any other breed of animal in South Africa. It is undesirable that we should have two stud books because then we have two standards. The Karakul farmers of South-West Africa and the Republic then agreed to approach the Minister and to ask whether the two stud books could not be amalgamated. To do so required certain legislation and hence the Bill we are discussing here to-day. Seeing that South-West Africa applies certain standards in connection with its stud book whereas the Republic applies other standards; and seeing that farmers in the Republic very often buy rams in South-West Africa and also because one finds farmers who have two farms, as I have—one of which is registered in the Republic and the other in South-West Africa—difficulties are always experienced in connection with what standard to apply in valuating animals, whereas there would only be one standard of valuation if the two stud books were amalgamated. As far as upgrading is concerned, I am very pleased that this provision is being written into the Act. It is a known fact that in South-West Africa as well as in the Republic we have a large number of animals which is a cross-breed of the Karakul ram with the Persian ewe. We find that even the fourth or the fifth generation of such cross-breeding yields an excellent fur. Such cross-breeding holds major advantages because the Persian sheep has a thin hide which is necessary to obtain a light fur and also has short hair which is necessary to obtain short hair in the Karakul fur and all these things combine to give one an excellent fur. On certain stud farms in South-West Africa we have cross-bred sheep of the 12th, 13th and 14th generations. We have entered them in our stud books. In this respect South-West Africa is very strict. No Karakul sheep are entered in the pedigree stud book there unless the 8th crossing has been registered for three successive generations and then only the 9th cross-breed is registered in the stud book. Therefore we may thank the hon. the Minister for accommodating us in that those animals will also be recognized as stud book animals in the future. They are excellent animals and many of them are better material than many of our pure-bred sheep.

I rise to make one or two brief remarks in amplification of what my colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park has said in support of this Bill. The Bill provides for the recognition of breeding methods which have not necessarily been recognized in the past and also for the recognition of associated societies during the period of six generations that they are grading up by a system of breeding, until they can reach the stage where they can have the normal registration.

Sir, some of our stud breeders who belong to the old-established registered breed societies have in the past perhaps looked somewhat askance at the development of new breeds. But we in this country have a tremendous variety of climatic conditions, and that alone justifies the establishment of new breeds and also ensures that there will be a place for those breeds in our farming economy. We have too a rapidly increasing human population which is going to bring in its train a demand for even greater food output and that in turn will lead to the need for an increase in our animal population. We know that our sheep population is increasing but there is also a need for an increase in our cattle population, which has now remained relatively static for a large number of years. But apart from the increase in actual numbers we can also, by new scientific breeding methods, increase the production of animals in this country. The hon. the Deputy Minister has mentioned one or two of the new breeds. I think he mentioned the Drakens-berger and the Walrich Merino as examples of what can be done. I would like to mention one or two more because I feel that tribute should be paid to certain people. I would like to mention amongst others the Bonsmara and the Döhne Merino (mentioned here by the hon. member for Newton Park).

Mr. Speaker, I should like to make particular mention of them because I feel that the officials of the Department have done a good job of work in this regard and in particular in the development of the Döhne Merino at the Döhne Research Station near Stutterheim. I should like to pay particular tribute to the officer who supervised the development of that Merino with the assistance of interested farmers in the neighbouring districts, namely Mr. J. J. Kotzé. The introduction of that breed has virtually revolutionized sheep farming in those areas south of the border. Where previously, due to very low lambing percentages —;of perhaps 50 per cent—it was never possible for the farmers to make progress with their sheep farming, to-day due to the developments of this new breed, allied with the control of parasites and so on, it has become possible for those farmers to make financial progress due to the tremendous progress they can make with their breeding programmes.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is encouraging that this legislation has been supported by the South African Stud Book Association, because it shows that the stud breeders of the country as a whole do not have closed minds on this question. This trend towards the development of other breeds is also in keeping with what has happened in other countries. In the United States, for example, they have had the development of various other cattle breeds such as the Beef Master, the Santa Gertrudis and the Brangus, and in a country like Brazil we find that they are developing a new dual-purpose breed of cattle based on Zebu stock. On the other hand, Sir, we do need to guard against mere indiscriminate cross-breeding and there is need for proper control in this respect. It is a matter for congratulation, I think, that this control will in effect be in the hands, not only of the Minister, but also of the South African Stud Book Association, because they are the representatives of the people who have maintained these very high breeding standards which we have managed to maintain in South Africa in the past. As long as there is the close liaison which there should be between the hon. the Minister and the South African Stud Book Association (for which provision is made in clause 2 (c)) when these new associate societies are recognized—and one looks forward to having that close liaison—I feel that the new breeding methods which it is possible to recognize under this Bill will not be in any danger of being abused.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who support this Bill, in particular the hon. member for Albany, I should like to thank him for having borne such good testimony in regard to the services which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services rendered in respect of the Breeding of the Bonsmara and the Döhne Merino because it was work well done. This work in point of fact is a good illustration of the quality of the services rendered by this Department. I want to give the assurance that there will be the closest cooperation between the South African Stud Breeders Association and the Minister to act as guardians to ensure that injudicious crossbreeding will not take place, as the hon. member requested. That is all I want to say, and I want to thank you very cordially for your support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill is intended to amend the Wool Act, 1946, and the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960. As far as the Wool Act is concerned, provision is being made in the Bill, firstly, for more elasticity in fixing the dates on which the chairman and vice-chairman of the Wool Board are to retire. Secondly, provision is being made for the extension of the provisions in regard to the utilization of donated moneys. Thirdly, provision is being made for the amendment of the provisions in regard to auditing the accounts and balance sheet of the Wool Board.

For as far as the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960, is concerned, this Bill provides that the Wool Commission can, with the approval of the Minister, finance out of its own funds the purchase and manufacture of packing materials for wool, and that the Wool Commission itself can purchase and store such packing materials for the purpose of selling them later to woolbrokers and other persons who in the course of their trade are suppliers of such packing materials. Provision is also being made for the appointment to the Wool Commission of an additional producers’ representative when circumstances should necessitate such an appointment. As was done in the Wool Act, provision is also being made here for more elasticity in fixing the date on which the chairman and vice-chairman of the Wool Commission are to retire.

In clause 1 of the Bill the definitions of the words “prescribed” and “regulation”, as contained in the Wool Act at present, are deleted because they have become redundant. The word “regulation” is no longer used anywhere in the Wool Act, but only in the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act. The word “prescribed” only appears in section 34bis of the Wool Act, where there is provision to the effect that the levy imposed by the Wool Board is payable to the Wool Commission in such manner and at such time as may be prescribed. Provision that levy regulations may be made, is contained now in section 21 of the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, and the word “prescribed”, where it appears in section 34bis of the Wool Act, meas “prescribed by regulation made under the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act”.

The amendment in clause 3 of the Bill seeks to make the position more clear, while the word “prescribed” is being defined in the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act in clause 6 of the Bill. In regard to the term of office of the chairman, the Wool Act, 1946, provides that the board has to elect one of its members to be the chairman and that that chairman holds office for a period of one year until the expiration of the period for which he was appointed in that board, whichever period expires first. In view of the fact that from the nature of the case the Wool Board cannot meet at exactly the same time every year, hon. members will realize that compliance with the present provision presents quite a number of problems. In practice the election of a chairman can normally not take place after exactly one year, and therefore it must necessarily take place before or after the expiration of one year. If the provisions of the Act are therefore strictly complied with, it may lead to all sorts of complications, and the object of the amendment in clause 2 is therefore merely to bring more elasticity into the relevant provisions. The same problem is being experienced with the term of office of the vice-chairman and the proposed amendment will also solve this problem automatically.

Section 35 (2) of the Wool Act, 1946, provides that the Wool Board may receive donations or contributions from any person. Any moneys acquired in this manner, must be utilized for the purpose designated by the donor or contributor, or if he did not lay down any conditions, such moneys may be utilized for any of the purposes of the Board. Therefore, when donations or contributions to this Board are in the form of money, there are sufficient directives in the Act as far as the disposal thereof is concerned. However, the Controller and Auditor-General rightly pointed out that donations or contributions were not necessarily made in the form of money only, and the purpose of the amendment in clause 4 is therefore merely to extend the provisions in respect of donations and contributions to all forms of donated goods and not to limit the application of the provision to money.

Section 36 of the Wool Act, 1946, contains certain directives in regard to auditing the accounts and balance sheet of the Wool Board. The Controller and Auditor-General pointed out that the directives in section 36 (1) in regard to the appointment of persons by the Controller and Auditor-General to assist him in auditing the accounts, as well as the directives contained in sections 36 (2), 36 (4) and 36 (5), are covered by the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956. The amendment in clause 5 is therefore merely aimed at removing the redundant directives in regard to auditing the accounts and balance sheet from the existing Act. For the information of hon. members I can just mention the fact that these amendments enjoy the support of the Wool Board.

For many years now it has been the function of the Department of Commerce and Industries to keep supplies of wool bags and to finance the local manufacture thereof. This was necessary for strategic reasons in order to prevent the wool industry of the Republic from being disrupted by shortages which may be caused by poor jute crops or restrictions imposed by supplying countries on the export of jute. As a result of South Africa’s dependence upon a raw material which is obtained mainly from non-sympathetic countries and also as a result of the detrimental effect of jute pollution on the good name of the South African wool clip, experiments were made with alternative raw materials. Accordingly it was decided recently to change over to the use of paper wool bags. Although paper of the required quality still has to be imported at this stage, it is, however, freely obtainable from Western countries. The danger of shortages has therefore virtually disappeared, and the provision of supplies as a function of the State can therefore no longer be justified. The distribution of wool bags to producers is being undertaken by woolbrokers, and soon they will therefore also have to accept responsibility for the financing and storing of manufactured wool bags. However, this will place a great financial burden on the brokers, firstly, because wool is a seasonal product and, secondly, because it is necessary to have a reasonable supply available at all times. If storing and financing were left to the manufacturers of wool bags, it may entail a considerable increase in the price of the producer.

It is being felt, therefore, that the Wool Commission should be granted powers to finance, if necessary, the purchase and/or manufacture of packing materials in order to prevent a possible interruption in the flow of supplies or avoidable increases in price. For this reason it is necessary for the Wool Commission to take over the further function of the Jute Controller, namely that of purchasing sufficient supplies. However, the Commission will not sell bags directly to the producers, but only to woolbrokers and to those persons who, in the course of their trade, are suppliers of packing materials to producers. The Act in its present form does not authorize the Wool Commission to carry out such functions, and in clause 7 of this Bill provision is being made for this. The ever-increasing competition wool experiences on the part of synthetic fibres has also brought the importance of sound marketing methods pointedly to the fore, and there is no doubt that this aspect will increase in significance. Even on international level more efficient marketing methods are being advocated.

It is the function of the Wool Commission to serve the Minister with advice on matters concerning marketing and, because his responsibilities in this respect may increase in extent, it is desirable that provision be made, as is being envisaged in clause 8, to increase the number of members serving on the Commission, when circumstances necessitate such a step, by an additional producers’ representative. This will involve the producer more closely in the marketing of his product, in which he has a real interest, and it will also promote continuity, which is essential. At present the Commission consists of only five members, of whom three are wool producers; the other two members are nominated by the South African Wool and Mohair Brokers’ Association and the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing respectively. In terms of the existing provisions of the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960, the chairman and vice-chairman of the Wool Commission are elected for a period of one year. As in the case of the Wool Board to which I have already referred, such an election cannot always take place in practice after exactly one year, but usually takes place before or after a year has expired. The proposed amendment in clause 9 will remove any obscurity in this respect. The proposed amendments relating to the Wool Commission and Wool Amendment Act, 1960, do, of course, also enjoy the support of the Wool Commission. I hope that, since this amendment has become essential, it will also have the support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House would like to support this Bill, but I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a few clauses in the Bill in regard to which we have problems. In the first instance I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the principal Act the objects of the Commission are defined, and that there is only one. The object of the Commission is “to stabilize the wool market of the Union in a manner approved by the Minister”. It says no more and no less. The Minister will remember how jealous wool growers have been through the years in regard to this stabilization fund which they have built up to a level of some R32 million at this stage. The audited report of the Commission as at 30th June, 1965, states that the amount in the stabilization fund is R32 million. It has always been a tenet of the National Wool Growers’ Association that this fund has no other purpose and should not be utilized for any purpose other than the stabilization of the market in a manner approved by the hon. the Minister. In the past the Commission has been fortunate in that the Minister has always been prepared to approve of the manner in which it sought to stabilize the market, namely price stability with a reserve price, and that they have done so reasonably successfully over a long period of time. But apart from whether the amendment, as effected in the Act now, is permissible under the object as defined in the principal Act, namely that it should only be used for stabilization purposes—I do not want to go into this matter because I know that the hon. the Minister will go into it before we reach the Committee Stage—I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that even at the board meeting of the Cape branch of the National Wool Growers’ Association held last week, there was an attempt by the Wool Board to obtain some of the interest accruing to the Wool Commission in order to help them as regards their finances for this year. It should be mentioned that the .1 per cent levy imposed by the Wool Commission has already been made over to the Wool Board for this year in order to make its Budget balance. But as regards the decision to approach the Commission with the request that part of its interest or part of this amount be handed over to the Wool Board, the Cape wool growers decided last week that they would under no circumstances be prepared to hand over even as much as a part of the interest of this amount to the Wool Board. I also want to inform the hon. the Minister by saying that at the last National Wool Growers’ Congress held last year, this legislation had already been submitted to this House in draft form and that it was discussed by the National Wool Growers’ Association. The information given there was that the National Wool Growers’ Association or the Commission only had research in regard to wool bags and containers in mind. They were keen to finance it. Since then the Department of Commerce and Industries has indicated that it is no longer prepared to finance wool bags and the control over jute has been lifted, and complications have arisen in that regard which now makes it difficult for us to understand why the wool grower would at present, under these circumstances, be more prepared to spend an amount —which may run into R3, R4 or R5 million—on the manufacture or purchase of bags if they had not been prepared to do so at the congress and if at their congress they had not been consulted in this regard as to whether this amount could be utilized from the Wool Commission’s funds. I was given the assurance by the chairman of the National Wool Growers’ Association that this matter had been dealt with administratively by the Wool Commission and that the wool growers had not been consulted in regard to the purchase and/or manufacture of bags.

I just want to go a little further and, seeing that the Minister made reference in his introductory speech to the paper bag, the manufacture of bags, the financing and manufacture of bags and the importation of the paper at this stage, I want to tell him that the information is that the paper bags for the shearing season which lies ahead and which starts in September of this year, will cost the wool farmer R2.45 up to R2.50. The plastic bag, which can be a by-product of either Sasol or a petrol refinery in this country, can cost as much as R1.30 or R1.40, which means that there is a difference of a whole rand between the price of the paper bag and that of the plastic bag. The present manufacturers of bags in the country have already sent several of us—and me, too—samples of the plastic bag. They are woven bags which are perforated and not solid plastic. The latter sort of bag will never be able to comply with the requirements of wool because wool must not be packed in air-tight containers. The perforated, woven bag can allow air to pass through. Even to-day, while this sort of bag is merely in the initial stage of manufacture, this bag is infinitely cheaper for the producer, as compared to what the paper bag would cost. I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because if the Wool Commission should in the first instance have to finance the manufacture and/or the storage of bags and the purchase of containers for wool, and if it were to become Government policy that supplies should be kept in stock in case of certain contingencies, in other words, if supplies were to be “stockpiled”, a great contribution may in due course be implied here, in the storing and manufacture of containers. The same combination of circumstances which may necessitate the financing of bags and containers, may also necessitate heavy purchases of wool. For that purpose this fund was established.

This side of the House does not want to thwart the legislation in this regard. If it is the wish of the wool growers that this stabilization fund should be extended in order that it may even embrace that object, namely the manufacture and the purchase of bags, then we do not want to oppose it. The latest information I have received from the organized wool growers, namely the National Wool Growers’ Association, was that they did not want these funds—these possible millions of rands—to be utilized for the purchase of bags, but that they would freely spend money on research with a view to producing an improved bag

There are no other points in respect of which this side of the House has any misgivings, and consequently I want to support this measure on behalf of this side, with the request to the Minister that he should investigate the two points mentioned here, namely the objects of the Commission as defined in the principal Act and the approval of the wool growers in this particular regard, and perhaps effect the necessary amendments at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that one can, of course, read the objects of the Wool Commission into the power granted them, or else one can read the power granted them into their objects. The object is to exercise a stabilizing influence on the wool market. If it means that the Wool Commission can keep the price low for the producer by means of the temporary purchase and sale of wool bags, then it does to a certain extent stabilize that market, and the Marketing Act specifically grants the right that, where there are boards which have to supply containers for certain purposes, they may finance such containers. They cannot carry on a trade in such containers—they must sell them through the normal business channels—but they can do that. For instance, take the case of the wooden boxes which are required for deciduous fruit. The boards in question can obtain the boxes in order to sell them again to the producer or those persons who distribute such boxes. Consequently I do not think that the Wool Commission’s proposed action, namely to supply containers in order to bring about a better stabilized industry, will run counter to the objects of the Act.

Hon. members mentioned two things, namely the supply and the manufacture. Where these bags are more specifically manufactured to serve as containers of wool, special manufacturers are necessary for this purpose. It may be that there will be times when the Wool Board will have to render financial assistance in that sufficient supplies may have to be purchased to enable manufacturers to continue their work. It may be that such a situation may rise. However, it is not the intention that it has to invest money in a special bag manufacturing industry. That is not at all the aim of this measure, and the Minister will probably not attach his approval to such a thing either. It is merely aimed at temporarily financing such a manufacturing industry to enable the manufacturer to provide the bags.

As regards the hon. member’s observations about plastic bags, I can inform him that research is continually being done by the C.S.I.R. and other bodies with a view to producing the best container. Unfortunately it has been found up to now that plastic bags—not only as regards bags for wool but also as regards bags for other purposes—are as yet not capable of standing up to normal handling, particularly as far as wool is concerned. Hooks and such things are used, and the paper bag is capable of standing up better to this sort of treatment. However, this does not necessarily mean that, if the Wool Commission is enabled to purchase bags in order to sell them again to traders, only paper bags will be purchased. If the plastic bag industry makes progress to such an extent that a better type of bag for packing wool is manufactured, it will of course also be possible to purchase bags of that type. Therefore, this does not really have anything to do with the sort of bag which is purchased; it is merely a power which is being granted here. If the Wool Commission exercises these powers, it must of course exercise them with the approval of the Minister. If these powers are exercised in such a manner that the Wool Growers’ Association feels dissatisfied about it, the Association will call the Commission to order, as the hon. member himself knows. It stands to reason that the Commission will not proceed to such steps if the people who are actually indirectly responsible for its establishment object to those steps.

The Commission feels that they can bring about a saving here if they carry out this function on behalf of the farmers, because the farmer will get his bags more cheaply. The farmer will not have to pay tremendously high financial costs and high rates of interest to the broker. This money is at any rate quite safe, because it is after all the producer who uses the bag and who has to obtain the bag from the broker, who, in turn, has obtained it from the Commission. The wool is, of course, supplied in that bag again.

Consequently I do not think that the hon. members’ objections are really material ones, in the sense that the danger has arisen that the Commission will be engaged in activities which have never been foreseen and to which the wool farmer will be totally opposed. On the other hand, the Minister still has the power, of course, to decide whether or not he will allow any particular proposal made by the Commission. It is felt that this authorization should be in the Act in the event of the situation developing in such a way that it becomes possible for wool bags to be supplied to the producer more economically. To a large extent their own money is being used, money they have accumulated in a fund intended mainly for this purpose, as the hon. member said, but, on the other hand, also for the purpose of enabling them to have their product marketed in the most economic manner. It is still their own money which is being used for this purpose, namely to provide them with a low-priced container in which their product is to be packed.

I want to thank hon. members for their support, and if there are other problems the hon. member wishes to touch upon during the Committee Stage, we can deal with them then.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This measure seeks to effect merely a minor amendment to the powers which the Minister of Economic Affairs has in terms of War Measure No. 146 of 1942 (Proclamation 319/1942) to authorize payments from the External Procurements Fund.

The Fund which I have just mentioned was established under Wat Measure No. 146 of 1942, and the Minister of Economic Affairs was empowered to pay from this Fund any expenses in connection with the acquisition, transport, storage, etc., of essential goods. At present, however, these powers are limited to the payment of such expenses only in respect of goods acquired either by the Minister himself or by officials of the Department of Commerce and Industries or External Procurements Missions on the instructions of the Minister.

The latest developments in the Government’s programme to make the country self-sufficient as far as possible in so far as having sufficient quantities of essential supplies at its disposal is concerned, have revealed that the Minister’s powers in this regard are somewhat too limited. The Government’s programme entails that for practical and administrative as well as economic purposes, it is essential that certain essential goods be acquired and stored by the private sector itself at the request of the Minister.

As could reasonably be expected the bodies and persons concerned approached the Government for financial assistance in this regard. The assistance requested is particularly in respect of interest on the additional capital which has to be invested for this purpose by the bodies and persons concerned.

By way of information it may be mentioned that although legal provision does exist for parliamentary appropriations for the purposes of the External Procurements Fund, the Fund has been operating on State guaranteed overdrafts from the Reserve Bank up to the present time. Those overdrafts are being repaid by means of revenue collected by the Fund on the instructions of the Minister in the form of handling charges and levies in respect of goods procured.

The proposed authority which is now being seeked is contained in clause 2 of the measure before this House. Clause 1, which is of a consequential nature, is merely intended to bring the Schedule to the War Measures Continuation Act, 1956, in terms of which the validity of War Measure No. 146 of 1942 has been extended, into line with the amendment proposed in clause 2.

I am of the opinion that this House will agree that this is not an unreasonable approach, and consequently leave is asked for the Act to be amended so that the Minister may authorize payments from the External Procurements Fund also in cases where the private sector buys at his request. I move.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to remind the Minister that this is to amend the War Measures Act of 1942, and it was this Government which was going to repeal all the War Measures, but we are still operating under those measures. This is to give us an opportunity to stockpile certain essential materials. It is unfortunate that we were not given any details, no doubt because it is in the national interest that details shall not be given, and it is because of boycotts that essential material may have to be stockpiled for some considerable period and therefore the Minister is seeking these particular powers to give certain individuals, who may be authorized by the Minister, the right to stockpile certain essential materials. We realize that it is in the national interest and we will not oppose the passing of this Bill, but I want to remind the Minister that as far back as 1942 it was this side of the House which put this Act on the Statute Book.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I move—

In dealing with this motion, which covers a very wide field, it is actually difficult to say what one wants to say in the short space of time available. It will therefore be my approach to cover the motion in broad outlines, while speakers on this side who will follow me will deal more fully with the particulars. In the 30 minutes at my disposal I first want to make five fundamental statements which will cover the broad background of our relations with our neighbours in Africa.

The first statement I want to make is that the White Republic of South Africa, in its present political constitution, is de facto and de jure an irrevocably permanent part of Africa, and the sooner the rest of Africa realizes, be it in despite of themselves, that they will have no choice but to live with us, the better. We have no intention of abdicating in South Africa.

The second fundamental statement I want to make is that the continent of Africa is at present strongly subjected to a multitude of political, economic and social problems, the ultimate solution of which will take several decades if not centuries, and will demand the utmost exertion and application. Thirdly, the only way in which true lasting political and economic stability will be achieved in Africa is through the closest co-operation of the African states in the field of politics and economics, in a spirit of true confidence in each other and on the basis of friendly co-existence. We stretch our friendship as far as possible, but we are not prepared to buy it or to obtain it in a way which is humiliating to any of the two parties. The fourth statement I want to make is this, that for various reasons South Africa, more so than any other country or concern, is at present in a unique position to contribute to a substantial and lasting solution to the Africa problems, and is also desirous of doing so, but her way is frequently obstructed by factors which are beyond her control and which arise from a misconception of her policy. And, fifthly, I want to elaborate on our task as I see it and on the contribution we can make.

In the first place, we adopt the attitude that we form a permanent part of Africa and that we make no apology for that. Historically we regard ourselves as a permanent part in view of the fact that we arrived in the southern part of Africa simultaneously with or at the same stage as the Bantu. We settled here, but we did not begrudge them the parts inhabited by them. We need not go back any further in history. In fact, if one went back even further one would find, and this is also a generally known fact, that the Bantu in any event did not inhabit Africa originally. We all know that the Bantu originally inhabited the region near Indo-China and Persia, and that it was only after many centuries that they decided to move southwards. One branch moved to the east, towards Australia, and the other branch up the Nile to Africa. In fact, it is interesting that the oldest Negro grave in Africa is only 5,000 years old. Furthermore it is interesting that 40 miles south of Wadi Haifa an interesting rock inscription was found in 1879 which states clearly that the Bantu were originally prohibited from penetrating south of that point. We need not go into the reasons why they did in fact move southward, but the fact of the matter is that one branch then moved to the west, to the present Ghana, and the other southward. When we originally arrived here in South Africa we arrived here virtually simultaneously with the portion that also moved southward. I want to put it this way: In South Africa’s White history it cost us many years of hard struggle to achieve our ultimate independence here. I may put it this way, that there is no other state in Africa that experienced a similar struggle, extending over centuries, to achieve its eventual sovereignty the way South Africa did. It is only now, at a later stage, that various sovereign independent states have emerged in Africa. When the U.N. was founded there were only Egypt, Liberia, Ethiopia and South Africa. It was only in the fifties that these were followed by Lybia in 1951, Marocco, Sudan, Tunisia in 1956, Ghana in 1957, and Guinea in 1958, and in 1960 as many as 16 states achieved independent status in a bunch, so that there are now altogether 41 independent states in Africa. For that reason I reject the concept of “Africa for the Africans” which is so generally postulated. To me that slogan is as meaningless as would be the slogan “America for the Red Indians” or “Canada for the Eskimos”, for example. We regard ourselves as a permanent part of Africa, and the sooner that is realized by the Black states of Africa that have an interest in this continent, the better.

Mr. Speaker, in this Africa in which we live at present there is a variety of nations. We recognize them, but we also expect them to recognize us, and on that basis only can any international relations be established between them and us. We have no imperialistic ambitions; we have no intentions on any territory beyond our borders. In fact, we are engaged in the process of granting total independence to the Bantu nations inside our borders as they become capable of accepting it. But it would be a crime against the future of the Whites in South Africa if we did not prepare ourselves to be able to withstand any assaults that may be directed against us. The relationship between various states in Africa applies not only to that beweeen us and the other Black states, but also the relations between Black states and Black states. I think the isolation we are at present experiencing on the part of the northern states of Africa is in any event no more than transient. But what I would actually emphasize is that in our relations with the independent Black states in Africa we have to deal with tremendous economic and political problems, which is a feature of Africa that we have known for centuries. Africa was remote from the civilizations which developed in Western Europe and in the East. It has a tremendous leeway to make up and we may say that Africa is at present chronically impoverished. As far as politics are concerned, it knew virtually no political organizations other than the ordinary tribal organizations. In the colonial era boundaries were demarcated on the basis of rivers, mountain ranges and coastlines, with the result that in the various independent Black states there are at present no units in the sense of a nation which is truly unified, spiritually and superficially. But in point of fact Africa with its problems, with its political independence, was woken up in an era of our modern history when all states underwent tremendous developments in the field of politics, and as a result of that there is at present tremendous disharmony among the Black states in Africa. The discord in the Organization for African Unity comes to mind as an example. At the last meeting Guinea, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania, Egypt, Algeria, Somali and Congo (Brazzaville) finally left the conference. In the African states we see one coup d’état after another, which suggests that among the various Black states in Africa there can be as yet no mention of co-operation on a fairly large scale. But these are simply economic and political problems that face us at present, and that we shall have to face up to if we want to bring about peace and order in Africa. We want stability in Africa; we have an interest in that. We want the closest co-operation between the various states in Africa. But those international relations must be formed in accordance with recognized international rules. We want to form new ties; we want to reinforce the old, existing ties, but that can be done only if it is done honourably. Sound international relations can be created only by honourable means. Being here in the south of Africa at present, we therefore adopt the attitude that we shall not tolerate interference in our domestic affairs, and neither do we want to interfere in the domestic affairs of other states. We do not care what kind of government is in power there; we do not care what form of government they have; we do not care what internal, domestic rules they have, just as long as they also respect our own customs and traditions in our country. As far as our domestic affairs are concerned, we demand that neither the world abroad nor any African state shall prescribe to us, and it is only if a state is sincerely desirous of forming sound relations with us that she will respect our domestic traditions. It is my contention that South Africa, more than any other country, is at present in the ideal situation to help to solve the problems of Africa. It is a matter of sincere concern to us, firstly because we form part of Africa; secondly because our country, South Africa, is the most highly developed country in Africa and we are capable of making an important and substantial contribution. But the hon. member for Potchefstroom, who will follow me, will deal with that in more detail. But furthermore, we have had centuries of experience of conditions and problems in Africa. We are eager to form ties of friendship, but there are several obstacles in our way, obstacles that have to be taken into consideration. In the first place there are certain misconceptions as regards our foreign policy. We are subjected to hostility that arises from egoism, from ambition and from jealousy. But in the second place I want to say that if there they will have to abide by certain rules. As are states that desire friendly relations with us, long as states indulge in training saooteurs to fight against South Africa, for example, they can forget about ties of friendship and sounder international relations. There are also other factors that form obstacles in our way. I am thinking, for example, of the conspiracy against South Africa in which various Western countries are at present taking virtually the leading role at the U.N. I am thinking for example of a resolution which was recently passed at the U.N. by 106 votes against one, that South Africa should release its so-called political prisoners. Our Western friends should know better, but was there one amongst them who came to its sober senses? We waited in vain for that to happen. It is interesting that action is being taken against Rhodesia on the grounds that it has a so-called minority government, but how many minority governments are in power in Africa to-day as a result of coups d’état? Have our Western allies ever considered taking action against them? Then I must also mention the one major obstacle in our way. That is the U.N., which is at present virtually the focal point for action against South Africa and for co-ordination of the plans against South Africa. There the conspiracies against South Africa are being fostered constantly, and that is why I say that the U.N., as it is at present, is indeed one of the greatest obstacles to co-operation in Africa. That is why I say that I, for my part, will shed no tears the day South Africa leaves the U.N. I am one of those who maintain that we support our Western friends in the U.N. as long as possible in their struggle against the East and Communism, but we can do that only as long as we can do so honourably. Why should we pay and contribute financially so that action may be taken against us? In due course we shall probably have to take that situation into review. There are, for example, the agencies of the U.N. from which we are expelled from time to time despite the fact that we made enormous contributions towards founding those agencies. What ingratitude we are receiving now for our sacrifices and financial contributions!

But there is a further important obstacle to co-operation in Africa, and that is that as far as the political governments of the various states in Africa are concerned, clarity must first be obtained and stability achieved. When we offer assistance to a country we should at least know on what basis and to whom we are offering it. But the way things are in many states in Africa at present, one never knows what government will be in power to-morrow. I therefore maintain that it is high time, in the interests of the African states themselves, that they began to achieve some stability.

But how are we to perform our task in Africa? If we make contributions to help to improve the standard of living in Africa we are in any event not prepared to join the bargaining between East and West, because such bargaining fosters an inclination to side with the one who is offering the highest price at the moment, and to sit on the fence with the sole and obvious object of pocketing as much as possible. Nor do I believe, in the second place, that the contributions we may make to the African countries should be made on humane grounds only. When disasters occur in Europe and elsewhere, we make contributions on humane grounds, and it is our duty to do so, but our experiences have not always been very pleasant. We recall, for example, how during the last war we donated the amount of R400,000 to one of the countries of our origin, i.e. the Netherlands, and how they repaid us by a contribution of R20,000 to the Defence and Aid Fund.

I therefore say that when we consider a permanent contribution in Africa, humane grounds alone should not be our principal consideration. Nor should we create the impression that we are doling out gifts and alms, for when a person receives gifts and alms he is inclined not to appreciate them and to expect more donations. I just want to mention one instance. Ethiopia, which is at present one of the ringleaders in the attacks on South Africa, has received R100 million from the United States of America since 1952, and after all these years only 5 per cent of the children between the ages of five and 14 in Ethiopia are at school, and they have only one doctor for every 96,000 inhabitants. But I notice that the United States of America is also beginning to feel and think sceptically about the alms which are being doled out to-day. Yesterday I read a report in the Cape Argus under the caption “Choice for Africa—Fool’s Gold or the real thing”. It reads as follows—

The report then states that since 1965 the U.S.A. has donated as much as $4 billion to states in Africa of which seven, i.e. Morocco, the Congo, Ethiopia, Liberia, Nigeria, Algeria and Ghana have deserted her. Four of them have had a change of government. Two of them were on the brink of revolution. That is why one feels that it would be a good thing if other countries also adopted a more sober attitude towards these matters.

But we also believe that when contributions are made they are not intended for the leaders only. What happened to Ghana? Ghana received the colossal amount of R 1,140 million and let it slip through her fingers. They even used it to buy golden beds. That is why I say that we should think soberly when we decide to make contributions.

In the few minutes I still have left I want to say briefly that I believe the contributions we are able to make and which will be of use to African countries should for the time being be restricted to technical assistance as regards stock diseases, irrigation, soil conservation, the cultivation of agricultural products, etc., but that we should concentrate in particular on the expansion of our trade, because then only shall we have a sound basis on which true economic prosperity can be built for those countries. There are, of course, many problems in the way of proper inter-territorial trade with African countries. For example, there are existing trade ties with the metropolitan countries. There are various payment and trade systems, and then those countries produce only primary agricultural products. But I believe that a solution can in fact be found to draw those countries into an economic union with Southern Africa which will be of great benefit to them.

If one reviews our relations with the African states, I think that despite the tremendous obstructions that are deliberately placed in the way of sound relations with our neighbouring states, we are already making a breakthrough. I want to refer, for example, to the talks held with the neighbouring states Lesotho and Botswana. I believe that those states and the talks held with them can lay a foundation for future fruitful talks regarding our entire situation and relations in Africa which will be of advantage not only to us and to the African states themselves, but which will in fact make a contribution to the solution of the tremendous problems in Africa that the world is facing at present.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Opposition I wish to move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary for me to try to prove at length how vitally imcotant our position in Africa is for us. Imagine what our position would be if a territory like South-West Africa, or Mozambique, or Rhodesia, especially in time of war, were to fall in the hands of an aggressive power. For so long were we part of the British world, and Southern Africa and the major portion of Africa part of the same world, that up to now we could afford to ignore Africa from the point of view of our security. Intruders were met and defeated at the northern extremity of Africa. But that position is now radically hanged. In the new Africa in which we live, we and the new independent African states will have to learn to understand each other, and, above all, to respect each other, because our security is now inseparable from friendly relations with the rest of Africa. That is why a dynamic Africa diplomacy has become a matter almost of life and death for us. A sound Africa diplomacy is necessary also from another point of view. Imagine for a moment that our position in Africa was once again a relaxed one, and that our relations with the rest of Africa were normal. The economic benefits that would accrue to South Africa and the African countries concerned would be colossal. If our trade can expand, as it is doing, under present conditions of virtually no recognized contact between us and many of the African states, a whole new world would open up for South Africa if those relations with Africa were again normal. South Africa would then indeed become the booming workshop of Africa.

Politically the results would be even more startling. The rest of Africa to-day forms the spearhead of the anti-South Africa movement in the world, both inside and outside the United Nations. It was at the instigation of African states that South Africa was booted out of so much of the life of the international community. Western concern over the attitude of these new African states lies at the root of much of the violent hostility which we encounter among erstwhile powerful friends. Now imagine for a moment that all these things were at an end and that we were at peace with the rest of Africa. I do not think one could exaggerate the enormous upsurge we would experience in South Africa if we were at peace with the rest of Africa. Just think what it would mean for South Africa if some of the vast amount of money, time, energy and manpower that we expend on defence could be turned into more positive and more profitable channels. I submit that peace with Africa is worth a price. I am not suggesting that it is worth any price. Of course not. But I submit that peace with Africa is worth a price; and that is why we insist that a dynamic Africa diplomacy should become priority No. 1 for South Africa.

The hon. member for Middelland has asked us to approve the policy pursued by the Government to achieve friendly co-existence. After listening to him, Sir, I must say that he has expressed little more than good intent. In fact I am afraid that in certain respects he even opposed the spirit of his own motion by continually complaining about Africa. I do not think we have ever not desired to live in peace with the rest of Africa, especially with our immediate neighbours. We know, too, that we have more or less always maintained some threads of contact, and that on the Onderste-poort level we have always been helpful to all in Africa. But, Sir, policy and good intent is one thing; the planning behind policy is another, and that is the important thing. We have very grave obstacles to overcome if we want to reshape our position in Africa, and what we missed in the presentation of the hon. member for Middelland is evidence of planning, of dynamic and comprehensive planning behind the good intent of friendly relations.

The motion speaks of “friendly co-existence”, and “fruitful co-operation”. The hon. member must know that the very first essential for the establishment of co-existence and co-operation between nations is proper contact. If there are to be any firm relations between us and the rest of Africa, there will have to be contact at ever so many levels of activity. There would have to be contact on Government level, contact on technological level, on educational level and in the field of economic co-operation. Without this kind of contact the whole concept of fruitful co-operation becomes a mere phrase, an empty phrase and of no real consequence. As far as contact at Government level is concerned, we recently had the summit meeting in Cape Town between the “two Johns”, the hon. the Prime Minister of our country and Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister of Lesotho. It was most certainly a step in the right direction. It was leadership of the right kind. Let it be known that in this matter the Prime Minister had the full support of the whole Opposition. But let me say and warn that this must not be seen as a case of mission successfully completed. It is but the beginning of something. We have merely begun to touch the problem. Far more dynamic leadership will be required in the near future if fruitful co-operation between us and an African country or two is to become an established fact. I am thinking particularly of the question of the exchange of permanent representatives. The Leader of the Opposition, speaking at the congress of the United Party in the Transvaal not so long ago, very emphatically said on behalf of the Opposition—

We had nothing about that from the hon. member introducing the motion. The Leader of the Opposition also pleaded that we should be first in line to give material assistance when we are requested to do so. For years the previous Prime Minister tried to promote the idea of roving ambassadors, hopalong ambassadors, between South Africa and our African neighbours: here to-day and gone—the same day! But right from the beginning this idea was suspect to the African states, and was rejected by them, for the simple reason that the Prime Minister’s motives were obvious. Everybody knew that this concept was designed to avoid day-to-day contact on a normal footing in South Africa. So the African states, the few who at this stage are willing to co-operate with us on a basis of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, are waiting. This is certainly clear from answers which the leader of Botswana, Sir Seretse Khama, recently gave to questions that were put to him. They are waiting to see if we are going to recognize their dignity, recognize their full independence as sovereign independent states, equal in status to ourselves, and whether we are going to allow a full exchange of political and trade representatives. I was rather sorry to see that the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared in a recent interview which was meant for foreign consumption, that—

Why not? Why not face the inevitable, or rather the essential now? It would be far better for us to take the initiative than to be forced by events later to do what becomes necessary. The Government will find no substitute for the conventional way of expressing friendship in foreign relations. The geographic proximity of South Africa to other states, like Lesotho and Botswana, is not going to prove a very helpful excuse, because Rhodesia is not so very far away, neither is Moçambique. We, least of all in Africa, can afford to apply glaring double standards in our formal relations with these nations. We suggest that the Government steer clear of the abnormal, which always attracts analysis. If there are to be friendly relations, let those friendly relations be normal in the conventional sense, let them be natural and relaxed.

Apart from this, I think that it is in our own selfish interests that we make boldness our friend. There can be no fruitful co-operation without thorough understanding: they must understand us and we must understand them. But understanding can only be brought about—understanding of internal policies, understanding of motives—if there is a proper exchange of permanent representatives, if you have the day-to-day interplay of diplomatic exchange.

The very purpose of diplomatic contact is the day-to-day promotion of understanding between governments, and where permanent missions are lacking, there must of necessity also be a lack of proper understanding.

But let us also not forget that serious efforts are going to be made by hostile powers to cajole our neighbouring states into becoming bases for all kinds of unfriendliness towards South Africa. This should be reason enough for us to have our on-the-spot men there who could at any moment put the case for South Africa, and for us always to understand what is going on in these states. I think that it is necessary for us to accept that we will have to have a proper exchange of diplomats and representatives on the conventional basis.

But there is another consideration, Mr. Speaker. I think it is in the highest interests of all of us that countries bordering on South Africa should not be ruled by extremists. But, if we want to see sound governments remain in office in these African states bordering on our country, we must not place the moderate leaders in any indefensible position in their own parliaments. As sure as we are sitting here, if we delay for any suspiciously long time the question of diplomatic relations, which affect the dignity and the status of countries, we will be playing directly into the hands of extremist leaders in a country like Lesotho. Already the leader of the Opposition of Lesotho has made a violent attack on Chief Jonathan, the Prime Minister, for the fact that he came back without an invitation from South Africa to exchange representatives. I believe we must make it possible for moderate leaders to maintain their position in their own countries.

But there is a consideration of an even more pressing nature, and it is this. If we in South Africa can set a pattern in Southern Africa—to start off with—of sincere economic co-operation and sincere political co-existence between the Republic and even one or two African states, like Lesotho and Botswana, there can be little doubt that it will have an enormously beneficial effect on South Africa’s damaged image abroad. If we can prove to the world that those who live closest to us can live amicably with us, can co-operate with us, can co-exist, then, of course, those that are far away will have to start thinking again about their attacks upon South Africa.

I know that there are many obstacles in the way of normal relations. We on this side have, of course, always warned that we should steer clear of any extreme forms of forced colour apartheid, because we were not solving any old problems but actually creating new ones. We on this side have also contended that public opinion in South Africa was not so helpless as some people believe it to be. I referred to the meeting of the two Prime Ministers in Cape Town. When the Prime Minister of South Africa, the White leader of the Nationalist Party here, and Chief Jonathan, the Black leader of the Nationalist Party in Lesotho, who once worked for four years on the mines on the Witwatersrand, met and ate together in Cape Town, colour became irrelevant. The Prime Minister had to brush the apparatus of apartheid aside and dealt with his counterpart from Lesotho on a basis of man to man, without regard to colour.

The significance of this to me was not so much the action of the Prime Minister, as the reaction of the public, the favourable way in which the public of South Africa responded and supported the Prime Minister, and approved of what the Prime Minister had done. This proves a point, Sir, and that is the most important aspect of this meeting. I believe that, given the right leadership, our people will be more than ready to face up realistically to the facts of the new Africa and the new world in which we live. Friendship is a two-way street, and all good relations must start with the recognition of dignity and with the establishment of natural contacts. In the second place: most of us are ignorant of the facts of Africa. Government agencies like the radio tend to foster an image of the whole of Africa as being in chaos. Even the hon. member opposite tried to create the impression that the whole of Africa were in chaos. Sir, Africa has its troubles, but the picture is not as bad as it is painted all the time, and I believe that we are going to defeat our own ends if the authorities do not help to create a state of mind in South Africa where people will look fairly and objectively at the facts of Africa as they are. We shall be defeating our own ends of trying to create friendlier relations if we create a wrong state of mind about Africa in our country.

Finally, I think there should be far greater appreciation and promotion by the Government of Dr. Anton Rupert’s inspired concept of industrial partnership. This is a South African concept of which all of us can be proud, and the fact of the matter is that the breakthroughs achieved by Dr. Rupert for South Africa with his concept of industrial partnership amount to more than anything achieved by the machinery of Government on the political front. There should be far more appreciation of this concept, with its avowed opposition to exploitation and its belief in sharing the rewards, because, according to that concept, nationals must always hold at least 50 per cent of the equity. Others have been quick to learn. I notice from a report that one of the first business ventures in Lesotho will be a publishing firm in which the firm of MacMillan’s in London will hold 50 per cent of the shares and Lesotho the other 50 per cent. They were very quick to learn, and I believe that our Government should be awake and encourage our big businesses to help new states with development on this basis and in this way help to promote friendly co-operation and fruitful co-existence between us and the African states. So our amendment rightly calls upon the Government to give a more imaginative lead and to take more positive steps in achieving cooperation between us and the rest of Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detract from the speech which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just made. Nor shall I reply to it as far as matters of principle are concerned, because attention will be given to that aspect at a later stage. However, I just want to say, also in the spirit of a contribution to the debate, that hon. member always creates the impression in me in this kind of debate of fear, fear of the outside world and fear for our position in regard to the outside world. I am satisfied that we have nothing to fear because we know all the people in our country. Militarily speaking we fear no one as far as Africa is concerned. I do not think we must ever allow that spirit to take root in these debates. Each state has a responsibility towards itself in respect of its own safety, and by that I do not mean its military safety only—and I am not going to restrict myself to that—but in fact its economic and technological safety. That is also the reason why, as far as this debate is concerned, we are also taking an interest in affairs in our own country as well as affairs outside our country, particularly in Africa and in what is taking place there and how that position can affect us. As an independent state we are also entitled to try and prevent any developments which may be contrary to our interests. In this connection I should like to take a look at Africa from the point of view of the economic principle in the under-developed countries, the rich country as opposed to the poor country, as well as at the problem arising from that, and I should like to try and make a humble contribution towards any positive ideas on what may possibly be done about it.

It is virtually only South Africa and Rhodesia which cannot be regarded as an underdeveloped country in Africa. If one glances in the first place at the position in the sphere of posts and telecommunications then it is clear that, particularly as far as telecommunications are concerned, practically all the other countries in Africa are unable to act independently. They are totally dependent upon monetary, technical and administrative aid from the rest of the world. As regards the number of telecommunication circuits in Africa, the comparison is as follows. In Nigeria there are 24, in the Congo 9, in the Cameroons 76, and the comparative figure in South Africa is 384. On 1st January, 1965, for example, the figures in respect of the number of telephones per 100 inhabitants in a few Africa countries were as follows. In Lesotho .16; in Ethiopia, where the headquarters of the Organization for Africa Unity is situated, .10; in Ghana .42; and in South Africa, for all races, White and non-White, it is 6.4. Approximately 18 months ago the number of telephones in Africa was 2.4 million, and of that total more than 50 per cent were in South Africa. The position as far as railways is concerned, compared with countries which have more or less the same geographic features as South Africa and are of the same size although they are greater in numbers, is as follows. In 1964 in Egypt the passenger traffic was 108 million, in Algeria 2.5 million, in Ghana 5.7 million, in Nigeria 8 million, and in South Africa the suburban passenger traffic alone totals 400 million. Rail miles in Algeria, an exceptionally large country, total 4,440 miles, whereas in our country it is more than 13,000 miles.

And television?

We shall come to that later. As far as education is concerned the percentage of literacy in Africa varies from one to ten per cent. In South Africa the position is that in respect of school-going Bantu children there is 85 per cent literacy. In other words there has been an improvement in our country of 600 per cent in comparison with the position in 1925. We have 6,000 student teachers and already have more than 3,000 Bantu graduates in this country. Compared with that there are in the 13 former British colonial territories, which are at present independent states in Africa with a total population of more than 80 million, not even 1,800 graduates. Without taking into consideration student teachers in our country, one out of every 74 White persons in South Africa are attending universities. That is the second highest figure in the world. In this respect we are surpassed only by America, with one out of every 52. In England the comparative figure is one out of every 450. If further comparisons are made with the gross national income figures, the difference is even greater. The gross value of mining, when Zambia is compared with South Africa, is R275 million as against R878 million. Take factories. There the figure in Ghana is R107 million as against our R3,188 million, and I can continue in this vein. The gross national product per capita compares as follows. In Ghana it is 193 dollars, in Kenya 79, in Nigeria 82 and in South Africa 554. It is generally known that this economic colossus which we have built up, particularly over the last 100 years, at the southernmost tip of Africa, produces 70 per cent of the world’s gold. We are second in the world as far as the production of antimony and asbestos is concerned. We are the third largest maize producer and the fourth largest wool producer, but what is of particular importance is that we are one of the 12 best-fed countries in the world, expecially when one considers that of the total world population of more than 3,000 million people, more than half of them suffer from malnutrition to a high degree. Since the First World War South Africa’s average productivity and labour capacity has maintained an average annual increase of between 2.6 and 3 per cent, the corresponding rate of growth in highly developed countries such as America, Britain and West Germany, as well as others, was only from 1 to 2 per cent, whereas in the rest of Africa it was less than 1 per cent where it has not remained static or decreased. Our entire gross domestic product increased between 1940 and 1965 at an average annual growth rate of 5.7 per cent, which is one of the highest in the world. According to the latest figures our total trade, imports as well as exports, amounts to R3,762 million, which affords us the thirteenth place in the world. I am just sketching this contrast between the underdeveloped areas and a developed country such as ours. [Interjections.] I am not doing so in a derogatory spirit but because I wish to sketch the background of the problem of the developed country in contrast to the undeveloped country, and what our problem in Africa is. This gap between the rich and the poor countries is to-day one of the root problems we are having to deal with in South Africa and is something we have to take into consideration in our relations with the other African states. The position is that the average growth in per capita income per annum during the period between 1957 to 1964 was 3.1 per cent in the developed countries as against 2.3 per cent in the lesser developed countries. This problem is growing to such an extent that where the average income of the Bantu in Africa varies from R40 to R60 as against R920 in Britain and R1,280 in America, it is planned that the income in the year 2000 will be R4,000 per capita in Britain, whereas in Africa it will be R100. That means that the gap between the rich country and the poor country is becoming wider and wider, and is doing so at a much faster rate. But the other danger arising from this is economic imperialism, if it could be called that, because the more the rich country pays for its labour, the less it pays for the poor country’s produce. A typical example of this is that during the period between 1950 and 1962 the value of exports from poor countries decreased from 31 to 21 per cent, and in the same period the rich countries doubled their gross domestic income. This condition is developing in Africa and as an economic colossus we are saddled with the problem of having to do something about it in our planning. But it is even more serious if one notes that in 1963 Africa received no less than 36.9 per cent of the total expenditure of the United Nations budget in terms of its technical aid programme. In 1959, four years prior to that, this figure had only been 14.1 per cent. In other words there had been an increase in this injection of aid by the United Nations of 22 per cent while at the same time there was a decrease of 10 per cent in the gross value of these countries’ trade. You see therefore what problems have arisen as a result. One third of the total aid received from the Western countries by Africa is spent in the five large countries on the coast of the Mediterranean. There are approximately 57 million people, but in the central part of Africa and further south there are approximately 224 million people who have to be content with the remaining contributions. Over and against this problem of a rapidly widening gap between the rich and the poor countries, there is also the problem of communistic aid coming from the other side. That aid has mainly an ideological basis. They believe that the strength of Western capitalism is primarily situated in the colonial or quasi-colonial markets and investment opportunities in the form of cheap materials. They believe further, and their economic programme is based on that belief, that if the West can be separated from these economically unstable states in Africa, its prosperity will begin to dwindle, and the severing of economic ties between the lesser developed countries and the developed West is therefore enjoying top priority from these people. They believe further that by making the recipient countries economically less dependent upon the West, they will also be less dependent politically. That is why economic aid from Soviet Russia and China is being concentrated on Africa. The Chinese state bluntly in one of their pamphlets that they regard Africa as the focal point of the struggle between East and West and they are also proving this with their contribution and particularly their changed attitude over the past number of years.

Up to March, 1965, for example, 40 per cent of Russian aid and 43 per cent of Chinese aid to non-bloc countries went to Africa. During the period 1956-’60 however, China devoted only 4 per cent of its total aid to Africa. In 1961-’64 the corresponding share in Africa rose to 30 per cent. Mr. Speaker, these are aspects which cannot readily be argued away and arising from them we get the following problem with which we are also faced. The colonial governments which endured for so many years in Africa gave rise to tremendous economic stagnation. Following on that there came the tremendously rapid rate at which political independence was granted to those states. But economic stagnation also led to these people developing a sense of political and military frustration and impotence; and the changes in world conditions and relationships also helped to develop in these people a feeling that they had to have the right to a decent existence. Throughout Africa, notwithstanding all the influences at work, there is one fundamental idea which obtains and that is the idea of race. These Africa leaders want equal rights in all respects for their race, and to a large extent that desire must be traced back to that economic stagnation which arose after the long colonial rule to which they had been subjected. But as it becomes possible to give these countries greater economic and social stability they will also become politically calmer, and when they calm down politically then we shall be able to maintain much more pleasant and peaceful neighbourly relations with those people.

In the world to-day, which has shrunk as a result of improved means of communication and trade, places where disquiet and dissatisfaction prevail as a result of poverty constitute a great threat to world peace. We are saddled with the problem. It is in our own interests to see to it that we are able to maintain sound and strong economic relations with these countries; we cannot trade with a poor country. But another aspect which is important is the fact that through sound planning on our part we can contribute to the establishment of a stable proprietary class in those territories. We can contribute to that, and if we can do so, then we are also contributing to a stable government and a stable application of the democratic system of government, which is not prevailing there to-day. To-day it is still in many cases a question of the strongest man who governs. We would like recognized democratic principles to prevail there. But another important factor which we must consider in connection with aid to other Africa states is that the further we are able to develop these areas technically and economically, the more precarious we will be making the foothold which communistic influence is trying to gain in these countries. But the principle to be applied in furnishing aid to these countries must always be that the aid must help the recipients to help themselves. This will be done; it is the policy of our Government and the policy of the National Party. Any deviation from this principle will defeat its own purposes and will amount to “show-place aid” in regard to which Senator Allan J. Eilender of the U.S.A. had the following to say—

This misguided American aid has already produced particularly strange results. I just want to mention two examples. The Haille Selassie University in Ethiopia, to which the U.S.A. contributed $1,200,000, was built in a country where no network of proper feeder schools exists. In the Republic of Somali a harbour was built to export wheat, of which commodity scarcely enough is cultivated in the country to feed the native population. That is not the way in which we want to render assistance. This planning, directed towards countries abroad as well as that for undeveloped areas on our borders and even within our borders, must also be co-ordinated. At the moment we have the position—this was not as a result of planning on our part but I am mentioning it in passing—that there are hundreds of American “Peace Corps” people in Botswana who are rendering assistance there. They are advising the people in regard to the building of roads, the construction of dams and other projects there. It is entirely praiseworthy and a very good thing, but the people are also conveying the American idea to the inhabitants of the country in which they are doing their work. A group of students from the University of the Witwatersrand went as a group to Botswana and have been there for the past fourteen days. In their spare time there they helped in the construction work on a school, and if my information is correct, they built approximately two classrooms in that time. What they made there was a positive contribution. But I want to mention another matter for the consideration of the hon. the Minister and ask him, if he deems it fit, to inform the House in this regard and give us all guidance on this matter. It is as a result of the appeal which the hon. the Prime Minister made to the effect that everyone should help to make South Africa better-known in the outside world and also as a result of the plea made by Dr. Dönges to the effect that we should make our ideals known beyond our borders and reveal our greatness of spirit and vision. Leading industrialists and financiers are pleading for contact with African territories in various fields such as cheap power generation, a strong “rand bloc” and expansion of international industries. Others lay emphasis on mutual consultation and collaboration. In this connection I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister will not take this House into his confidence and inform us of his views in regard to the idea that an advisory council should be set up, an advisory council such as has already been propagated in the Press, but a council which goes further than a mere council composed of people from the private sector, or a council composed of senior officials of the various State Departments. I should like to hear the hon. the Minister’s views on the establishment of a body which (a) has as its task the proper planning of South Africa’s position in respect of all under-developed areas, at home as well as abroad; (b) the coordination of all aid which can be rendered in the economic, technical, agricultural or any other spheres; (c) which is composed not only of senior officials of Government Departments and statutory bodies but also of experts in various fields from the private sector; and (d) which will fall under the direct control of the Government. Mr. Speaker, there are African leaders who are no longer viewing us with hostility, and I have every reason to believe that if we are able to make our ability to render economic and technical assistance fully available in a properly planned way we will ultimately, and perhaps even sooner than we expect, be able to take our rightful place in this sphere as well in Africa. I gladly support this motion.

The motion which is before the House is one of considerable importance. The fact that it received high priority, suggested to us that it might be Government-inspired. We ourselves welcomed the opportunity of ventilating this whole issue as we hoped that from the discussions here there would emerge a pattern, a blueprint, which would indicate what our future relationships might be with the African states. We were therefore somewhat disappointed with the introduction of the hon. member for Middelland, because having stated five guiding principles, which guide his own thinking in this matter and with which we do not seek to quarrel at this stage, he then devoted the rest of his speech to telling us of all the obstacles that exist and which prevent us from doing anything which is in fact worthwhile.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom gave us a detailed statistical assessment which I think was calculated to indicate that South Africa is in fact in a position to supply economic and technological aid to the more backward states of Africa. This we do not quarrel with. I think the hon. member also quite rightly drew attention to the vast gap which exists at the moment between what is commonly called the have-states and the have-nots. Mr. Anton Rupert put his finger on this particular issue when he said, “If they do not eat then we cannot sleep.” One could perhaps put it differently and say that “envious neighbours are dangerous neighbours”. We fully support that particular contention. But, Sir, here we have an important problem that faces South Africa, and perhaps one should view it against a broader canvass; perhaps one should analyse it more systematically and ask the ordinary conventional questions that one does under these circumstances, and these questions are: What, why, how, by whom and when?

I think the “what” part is fairly easy because it is clearly stated in the motion before us. This is a statement of intention. The object, the aim, is quite clear. We must seek to establish friendly relationships with the areas to the north of us. With this no one can quarrel; we certainly support it; we endorse it. Why is it necessary that we should do so? It is because, as has already been indicated, we form part of a vast continent and in the past, perhaps because our efforts have sometimes been repulsed there has been a tendency to withdraw; there has been a tendency to turn away from the areas of conflict, but the world has changed in such a way that we cannot do this any longer. We therefore see implied in this motion recognition that we must play our rightful role in Africa. We see also recognition of the fact that we live in a world where it is estimated that at the turn of this century 70 per cent of its population will be non-White. We find ourselves in a continent where even at the moment probably 98 per cent of it is non-White. We cannot escape from this situation; it is there; we must learn to face it and we must approach it positively and constructively. It is a source of great regret to us that we have been kept out from most of the scientific and technical societies in Africa; it is a source of great regret to all of us that we have at the moment virtually no diplomatic representation elsewhere in Africa, and although it is true that this represents their loss, it is, of course, in a meaningful, significant way also our loss. The motive therefore is clearly established, but I think one can add additional considerations to this particular issue. I suppose with nations it is very much as it is with people; they do things either for the purpose of self-gain or they do it for altruistic reasons, and very often it is a combination of both. In this particular case as far as South Africa’s relationship with the rest of the African continent is concerned, it probably is a combination of both. People have ventured forth in the past and have sought to extend their borders because of military considerations, but as has rightly been pointed out by the mover of this motion, not even our greatest enemy can contend that we have territorial ambitions. We have never had them in the past and we do not have them now. In any case what would we gain by extending our territory? There is nothing beyond South Africa that we seek that we do not have at the moment. Indeed, if we were to extend our territory, we would severely aggravate the existing problems in South Africa, in view of the population composition in the rest of Africa, and we would not come anywhere nearer to their solution.

It is true too that a people very often seek to extend their sphere of influence because of economic considerations, to which the hon. member for Potchefstroom has referred. There are people who maintain that sentiment does not enter into business or into trade, but it does. We can quote significant statistics to show how our trade with the African territories is increasing, but these figures are not altogether meaningful because they do not reflect potential losses in trade, and I myself can vouch for this. You go to a place like Tanzania where they require mining equipment and you say to them: “These particular items you can buy in South Africa at half a million pounds and delivery will be given within a month; alternatively, your other source of supply is America where you will have to pay twice as much and it would take three times as long to deliver.” Invariably these people say, “We will order the equipment from America”.

This is not right, because we have here a position of vantage as far as economic and trade matters are concerned. At the moment we are industrializing and for the time being we can feed our expanding domestic markets. Soon, however, these will reach saturation point. Where then are our natural markets? They are in Africa. There are some even who talk in terms of a common market for Southern Africa and although this might be premature at this stage it is certainly true that greater trade might lead to greater political affiliation.

This brings us then to the political factor. It is natural for all countries in the world to create a sphere of influence around themselves. America set the tone in this regard many years ago. We live in a world where a form of multilateral diplomacy operates, where people think in terms of blocks and groupings of nations. Therefore it is quite natural that we should seek allies. And if we are attacked at U.N. what better defence could we have than to have important members from Africa itself who could rally to our side? This, I think, answers clearly the question why we must do these things.

Now we come to how they should be done. Here we come up immediately against certain fundamental problems. If we accept this motion with all its implications, it will bring in its wake certain very dramatic adaptations of our existing views. You cannot, for example, do this type of thing on a one-way communication system; two-way communication is required. Furthermore, if we do this on the massive scale on which it should be done so as to make a real impact, then there would be large numbers of people who would want to come here from Africa and elsewhere, people with whom we would wish to confer and negotiate. But here we immediately run up against some of the existing legislation of this country. Hewever, if this matter is one which is earnest to the Government then these issues must be approached and tackled and must be overcome. There are probably many different ways in which this could be done. If it is embarrassing to us at the moment to bring these people in and superimpose them on our existing structure, then we shall have to consider other possibilities. What is there, for example, preventing the Government from establishing a new town where normal conventional legislation could be held in abeyance and where norms which are universally acceptable would obtain? This is not as far-fetched an idea as it might seem. The U.N. premises in New York, although on American soil, do not belong to America and even have its own police force. Way back the Australians, when they had to create a new capital, selected a piece of bare veld. In that way Canberra, their existing capital, arose. We accept that these arrangements have disadvantages but, as I said, if this matter was really meaningful to us, we might have to resort to this type of arrangement.

But there is yet a further consideration. Are we, in the existing setting, prepared to use our non-Whites, for example, to the fullest extent? If we look to the north our non-Whites can clearly establish rapport much more easily than any White man can. Is this not the advantage which, for example, China enjoys at the moment because they can rightfully say that they are non-White? And what is more we have the resources here; we have the people. Mr. Speaker, I have spent a long time in testing the aptitudes of thousands of black people coming from all over Africa south of the Sahara and I can say here with conviction that those we have here in South Africa have attained a standard which is infinitely higher than that attained by others further north. And it is not surprising that this should be the case, because those here represent the more dynamic and virile groups which decided to emigrate to the south many centuries ago. Furthermore, they have been in close contact with the White man here for a longer period; they have acquired a much greater degree of know-how; they have a much greater degree of acculturation. So we have here a vast potential of people who could be used in the interests of South Africa. But would the Government be prepared, for example, to give them the training that would be necessary? Would they be prebared to grant them the facilities which would be necessary to operate in our interests? Would they see to it that they are remunerated on a basis which would make it possible for them to do this work? Or have we for so many years thought of the non-White merely as presenting a problem that to-day we can no longer see him as an asset?

Then there is the whole organization of our diplomatic service. If this is meaningful to us, then the Africa section of our Department of External Affairs will have to expand. I am not sure what this section contains at the moment. According to the Budget the head office has 148 people of whom 95 are shown as being lesser staff—one presumes clerks and typists. But compare this with some of the other states with massive organizations of advisers, experts and fringe organizations which can supply technical information. If this matter is really of consequence to the Government, then it shall have to give serious consideration to this aspect.

Now we come to the question, by whom must this all be done? And here, again, we come up against certain fundamental difficulties. Here we must not see the problem as we see it, we must project ourselves and see it as people elsewhere in Africa see it. What is the image they have of this Government? It is an image which is tarnished; it is an image which, as far as they see it, is entirely based on making race the supremely important factor; it is an image which rests on the whole ideology of establishing the superiority of one’s skin, one’s white skin. And what does this do? It immediately evokes feelings of the greatest resentment and it engenders the deepest passions of revulsion. Here, then, is the fundamental problem we have to face, and we must face it because the Government must move in this direction and should move in this direction. It is, however, caught up in the vice-like grip of its own dogma.

Then we are left with the question, when? Here we, on this side of the House, perceive a measure of urgency, something which we have not seen on the Government side—indeed, it does not appear in the motion which is before us. This must be done now, immediately. Already we have lost 20 years. Experts from all over the world are flocking to Africa and are taking all the cherries while we will be left with the crumbs. But it is important that it be done now also for another reason. In these African states there is at the moment a certain degree of reappraisal. After the first flush of independence some of them are now beginning to realize that they have to live under conditions of co-existence. This might well lead to more conciliatory political attitudes towards South Africa and that is why we must strike now whilst the iron is hot.

The attitude of this side of the House towards this motion is, then, that we fully accept the objectives of the hon. member and we fully accept the motives behind it. However, we have the deepest reservations regarding the Government’s ability to carry them out. However, we are at least pleased that this particular motion has come before the House, because observers of the South African scene tell us that within the Government we have those who are outward thinking and those who are inward thinking. This type of motion certainly suggests that those who are outward thinking have won this particular round. It is because we too are conscious of our role in Africa, it is because we too have a vision for South Africa, a vision which we believe is broader, bolder, embraces more and is likely to be longer lasting, that we thought fit to put forward our amendment to this particular motion in the way we have put it forward.

The opportunity to discuss this well-considered, comprehensive motion on such an extremely important matter in this House is indeed welcomed by all of us. I want to thank the mover of the motion, his seconder and the two hon. speakers on the opposite side. The speeches, particularly on this side of the House, testify of sincerity, enthusiasm and thorough study. That is certainly encouraging to me and also to my Department, and we shall give very thorough consideration to, and where possible use, the ideas and wishes expressed here, from the opposite side of the House as well.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout was less constructive for the major part of his speech. He was less helpful. In particular he complained about a lack of planning, a lack of sound diplomacy, and he even mentioned separation in the field of colour, I do not know with what object. I want to tell that hon. member that his allegations are quite unfounded, as I shall in fact demonstrate in the course of my speech. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked me a whole series of questions, Mr. Speaker, to which I shall reply as far as possible and as far as time permits. This motion emphasizes the crux of our policy in respect of Africa, both as regards the spirit in which we approach those relations and as regards the object and the aims of our policy towards Africa. In that regard I want to stress right at the outset that the Government’s approach to our relations with the states in Africa is one of cordial readiness to help. And although the Republic of South Africa is undoubtedly the most prosperous and in most fields probably also the most highly developed of all the states in Africa, South Africa’s task on the continent of Africa is not to dictate condescendingly to others in Africa what they should do and how they should manage their affairs. On the contrary, we must avoid that attitude at all costs, because it is in conflict with the principle of non-interference, a principle which we support very strongly. The object of the Government’s policy in respect of Africa is to assist the nations of Africa and to help them to stand on their own feet, to work out their own salvation and to secure their own future, and to do so without losing their self-respect. In this regard I want to caution that we should never create the impression that we seek to overhelm or dominate Africa. We are all agreed. I think, that we are pre-eminently able and prepared to give expert advice and assistance to the African states as far as possible. And I think we are also agreed, Mr. Speaker, that most of the African states are in dire need of such assistance at the present moment. It is no secret that things are not going very well with the vast majority of the independent states of Africa. Not so long ago President Julius Nyerere said that 1966 had not been a good year for Africa. The events of the past year proved indisputably that most of the African governments are unable to derive full benefit from the independence they have gained, that they are unable to relieve the plight of the masses of Africa. In fact, authorities on Africa maintain that poverty is one of the main causes of all the unrest in Africa at present, and they predict that unless radical changes are made and unless food production in Africa increases considerably, many parts of Africa will be faced with a grave famine in the last quarter of this century. Things are not going well with the Organization for African Unity either. At its last meeting that Organization was compelled to reduce its budget by two-thirds. The Organization also suffers from a chronic lack of unity. As a result of that discord they are unable to make any noteworthy contributions to the solution of Africa’s most serious problems. So far the only factor that served to unite them to some extent was their hate of White regimes in Southern Africa, and their inability to bring about any change in that regard. But in that respect, too, the front of unity is not so firm any more, and there are tendencies in Africa to form groups in which the extremists join forces while the moderates form another group. It is a fact, for example, that several members of the Organization are openly refusing to participate in economic sanctions against neighbouring states merely because those neighbouring states are under White rule. One can only trust that the ranks of the moderates in Africa will be strengthened, as has happened through the admission of our two youngest independent neighbouring states to that Organization.

Mr. Speaker, I have frequently predicted in the past, here and elsewhere, that a day would come when greater realism would ‘be displayed on the part of the African states. And that is precisely what is happening. It is happening as the extremistic, irresponsible leaders of Africa are replaced one by one. I believe that the hostile spirit towards South Africa, the fashion to vilify us and to attack South Africa in season and out of season, will gradually change as all other fashions do, if it is not changing already. I believe that the day will come when more and more of the African states will accept and no longer scorn the hand of friendship that has been extended by South Africa.

I do not want to comment on the merits or otherwise of the large-scale assistance rendered to Africa by other foreign powers, but what I do want to do is to emphasize that we neither want to nor can compete with the major powers in respect of assistance in the form of enormous financial contributions. In the first place, we cannot do so because we lack the means, and because we have very heavy commitments as regards the development of our own non-White citizens in the Republic. And in the second place, we do not want to do that because we are convinced that it offers no lasting solution to the problems of Africa. In our view the solution to those problems is rather to be found in co-operation and assistance aimed at helping people to help themselves. We do that on one condition, however, and that is that the recipients of such assistance should be prepared themselves to put a shoulder to the wheel and that they should throw in their full weight. Unless that happens all assistance is in vain and wasted. I am convinced, Sir, that we can make considerable contributions, contributions out of all proportion to our population figure and our means, if compared to those of the major powers. South Africa has proved that she can do that. Let me remind you, Sir, of the enormous contributions we made in connection with organizations such as the C.C.T.A., the C.S.A. and others, which were founded after the Second World War. Unfortunately, as the hon. member pointed out, the co-operation which existed in those organizations came to an end. But despite that there has been constant cooperation with our immediate neighbouring states, with all of them. In some cases that cooperation also extended further northwards. In recent times the circle of those who would like to co-operate with us has been growing continually, has been expanding. The contacts between the Republic of South Africa and other states in Southern Africa are increasing. The traffic is increasing in a large variety of fields. Since July last year ministers from Africa passed through Jan Smuts Airport on more than 50 occasions en route to South Africa or elsewhere—and in giving this figure I do not include the guests who went to attend the independence celebrations. Such ministers are regularly received and assisted by senior officials of my Department. Personal contact is made with them, and in that way a great deal of goodwill is created, to such an extent that the broadcasting corporation of a major African state recently thanked South Africa publicly for the good treatment its citizens had received on Jan Smuts Airport.

Mr. Speaker, I need only refer, without expanding upon them, to the three historic events which occurred in the past six months. I am thinking, of course, of the historic meeting between the late Dr. Verwoerd and Prime Minister Jonathan in September. I am thinking of the independence celebrations of our two neighbouring states, where as Minister of Foreign Affairs I myself represented South Africa, and where I myself and the officials who accompanied me made many valuable contacts with members of the governments and with officials, contacts which are already producing good results.

Thirdly I am referring to a further historic event, when Prime Minister Jonathan visited Cape Town to meet our present Prime Minister here and to hold talks with him. I think we are all agreed that that meeting will have far-reaching consequences for Southern Africa.

Those are not the only instances, however, of contacts with the governments of African states. In the case of all our immediate neighbouring states reciprocal official visits are virtually everyday occurrences. But apart from liaison with the governments of those states, eight official and semi-official missions from the Republic visited other African states during the past 12 months, while several such visits were made to the Republic. Four more visits by official missions from African states will take place in the immediate future. All these missions relate mainly to technical co-operation.

Let me give you a few further examples, Sir. Recently an African state which is not one of our immediate neighbouring states applied to us for assistance in connection with certain important air navigation aids. We made those aids available to them, and also expert officials to assist them in installing them. They applied to us for assistance as regards architects and townplanners, which we also made available to them. Last year a technical mission from the Republic visited a distant African state to advise the government of that state on the development and exploitation of minerals. At the request of the head of government of another African state, many thousands of miles from here, we sent a geological team to that particular country last year. I should like to read some extracts from a letter which the head of government of that country recently wrote to our present Prime Minister—I am reading from an English translation thereof—

Incidentally, it was not the first example—

I can assure you that this visit will be followed up. Various other applications for technical assistance are under consideration at the moment and relate to a large variety of matters which range from the construction of roads and railways to health services. For example, we have already agreed to train nurses in the Republic for certain states in Southern Africa. As was mentioned in the joint statement issued by our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Lesotho, Prime Minister Jonathan has also submitted to us certain proposals covering a wide field. Some of those proposals have already been dealt with and others are still under consideration. In addition, discussions with several neighbouring states are contemplated with a view to the utilization of rivers of mutual importance and to co-operation as regards water and power problems.

There is also a considerable deal of cooperation in the economic field, of course. The economic traffic with all our neighbours in Southern Africa is developing in a normal and satisfactory fashion. We also have trade agreements with most of them, while others among them who are also members of G.A.T.T. are receiving most-favoured treatment here in the Republic. In the case of one African state, a Black state, we are on the point of concluding a new trade agreement. That is over and above the monetary and customs union with Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland, which has been in existence for a long time. I may mention in passing that this customs union will be taken into review shortly.

The private sector is of course making significant contributions to economic co-operation with the rest of Africa. In that regard the private sector enjoys the support of the Government, which must give permission for exports of capital to foreign countries. Economic co-operation usually takes place within the framework of the Government’s export credit re-insurance scheme, and that is what happened in the case of the construction of the pipeline from Beira to Umtali, and the erection of a sugar mill in Malawi at a cost of approximately R2.5 million.

The independence of Botswana and Lesotho, with that of Swaziland in the offing, is of course welcomed by all of us, as also by the Government. Amongst other things those developments offer us an opportunity to expand and develop our Africa policy even further. But I agree that they also bring greater responsibilities and obligations. It was therefore decided towards the end of last year that the responsibility for handling all matters affecting all three of those territories would in future vest in the Minister of Foreign Affairs and my Department instead of in the Prime Minister and his Department, as was always the case in the past. In other words, those three neighbouring states will in future receive exactly the same treatment, and the same procedure will be followed with regard to them, as in the case of friendly sovereign states. This should meet with general approval and will also greatly facilitate the co-ordination of our foreign policy, particularly in Southern Africa.

Interest in our relations with Africa has probably never been as intense as at the present moment, both here in Parliament and outside. The Government welcomes that; my Department and I welcome that too, because we are continually deliberating on how to meet that challenge in the best possible manner.

In this regard I want to say that the Africa Division of my Department is the pivot on which everything hinges. The head of that Division is an official who has already been an ambassador. He holds the rank of a deputy secretary and he is assisted by capable and experienced officials. Amongst other things, the Africa Division is at present performing the functions which are usually performed by an embassy abroad. They do so by paying regular routine visits to the various capitals and by means of consultations with ministers and officials of those countries. They also receive reciprocal visits from neighbouring states, and in that way personal contacts are built up, just as it is done by an ambassador and his staff in any country. In this regard I may say that the telephone is also playing a very important part, because our immediate neighbours are contacted telephonically on all levels virtually every day.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout again trotted out his old hobby-horse, namely the question of diplomatic relations. I want to point out right away that diplomatic relations between the Republic and the other countries in Southern Africa do in fact exist. In some cases, however, we do not have permanent diplomatic representatives in those states. I must tell you frankly, Sir, that I believe that there will in fact be an exchange of diplomatic representatives with African states at some future stage, but let me add at once that that is not a real problem at the present moment. In this regard we may learn very useful lessons from our own history, particularly from the days of the Great Trek and the two Boer Republics. Our forefathers frequently sent or received envoys to negotiate with Bantu peoples about specific matters. But there was also one very important exception. No less a person than the late President Paul Kruger appointed a consul with diplomatic status and privileges to represent the Transvaal Republic in Matabeleland, which was then governed by Lobengula, who was on friendly terms with the Transvaal Republic. That consul was a certain Piet Grobler, a farmer and businessman, originally from Waterberg and later from Ermelo. There may be relatives of his in this House. He was appointed to go to Bulawayo, the capital of Matabeleland, in the capacity of consul for a period of two years, taking his family with him. Unfortunately he was not there for very long, because he was murdered by members of some other people during a journey which he undertook in a neighbouring state. But despite this precedent as regards diplomatic representation in our own history, I want to say that at this stage there is no need to exchange permanent representatives with African states in which we do not have such representatives yet. In the first place it is far too expensive, and the exorbitantly high costs involved are not justified and cannot be afforded by the parties concerned. Secondly, the present arrangements are quite satisfactory to ourselves as well as to those states. Nor, in the third place, is it quite novel or unprecedented to arrange relations between states in this fashion. It may not be generally known, but in the Middle East certain friendly neighbouring states follow exactly the same procedure in their negotiations. In other words, they conduct their mutual affairs without having permanent representatives in the capitals of the friendly countries. In that regard, therefore, there is really no problem whatsoever that need cause hon. members any concern at this stage.

A good deal has been said and written recently on the necessity for putting into operation new machinery to promote co-operation with Africa, and it is therefore essential that I should give the House the assurance that satisfactory administrative arrangements are already in existence as regards both economic and technical co-operation, in that there is a permanent inter-departmental advisory committee for co-operation with foreign countries, and its chairman is the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In the past, over a period of many years, that committee concentrated mainly on foreign trade relations. The committee is in fact called the Foreign Trade Relations Committee. In recent times the committee has also advised the Government on wider co-operation with other states. This committee has, for example, rendered very valuable services with regard to questions and proposals which arose as a result of my recent visit to South America. At the moment they have their hands full with affairs concerning Africa, and this will be the case to an ever-increasing extent. One of their principal functions is to co-ordinate. Not only do they form the link among the various Government Departments concerned, but members of that committee, who are usually heads of Government Departments, are also in constant contact with institutions such as the I.D.C. and the C.S.I.R., and also with private concerns interested in co-operation with foreign countries. I should like to use this opportunity to thank the private sector for their interest and for the assistance we have received from them. They need never hesitate to come and talk to me or my Department: we shall always receive them and assist them, in consultation, of course, with the relevant departments.

I do not believe the increased activity will involve exceptionally large additional expenditure for the State. The Government will of course have to decide from time to time on specific projects which may involve large capital expenditure, such as the Kunene scheme, which we have already commenced with, but in general it should be possible to render technical assistance in quite a few fields at relatively low cost, as we are already doing. Time does not permit me to deal with further examples of such assistance, however, and I must conclude by saying that I am firmly convinced that we shall be able, through the channels which I have indicated and which we are already using, more and more to make important contributions to the development of African states which believe, as we do, that mutual respect and fruitful co-operation are possible between nations and governments in spite of their perhaps having divergent political views. I am firmly convinced that we shall succeed in that object and that we shall be able to prove to the world that peaceful co-existence in Southern Africa is possible provided that we always act in the same spirit as that in which the talks between our Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Lesotho were conducted.

After the encouraging, semi-dream-world, from which I have to pull my thoughts—with the friendship and cooperation which we all seek—and which, according to the hon. the Minister, has been achieved to such a large extent in Africa, one wonders why it is that so much attention, so much thought and so much interest should be centred in this subject. The Minister has indicated to us that in area after area in which, judging by what one hears even over the S.A.B.C. and in the Government Press, we are under fire from all corners of Africa, in fact that should not be the position; that in fact we have channels of communication; that we have friends in Africa and that our assistance is being offered, accepted and utilized. Sir, what is it then that puts South Africa in the isolated position in which we find ourselves in the councils of the world? If there were this friendship, one would expect that it would show itself in some form or other: one would expect that some of these states with which friendly relations have been built up. would come to our aid and support when we need aid and support, in the discussions which take place at the United Nations and elsewhere. And yet we find this motion introduced by the hon. member for Middelland with a violent attack on the states of Africa, a violent attack on their leaders, on their forms of government, on their totalitarianism, on the non-representative character of their governments, an attack designed not to try to create the grounds for friendship but to point out how impossible it is to achieve friendship. We find the mover of the motion taking that line, pointing out the difficulties and problems and attacking the people with whom we seek friendship. On the other hand we find the Minister telling us that that friendship has in fact already been created. I do not believe that we should bluff ourselves; neither do I believe that we should regard everyone as being against us and take too gloomy a view of our situation in the world. What we have to do is to keep our feet on the ground and neither bluff ourselves into a sense of false security nor to allow ourselves to become despondent because of the difficulties that we face. I think one of the problems has become very clear from the hon. the Minister’s speech. Towards the end of his speech he made it clear that his policy and the policy of the Government was an ad hoc policy, a policy of dealing ad hoc with different states and with individual problems, a policy of sending missions and technicians or having discussions at Government level as and when circumstances necessitate it.

You cannot force the pace.

Sir. I accept that you cannot force the pace, but I also accept that you must have a policy. You must have a plan; you cannot deal with international relations on an ad hoc basis, hoping that here and there you will make some progress, because by the time you get round the circle and pick up the threads again, you have lost what goodwill may already have been created. Our reason for moving an amendment to this motion is that while we agree wholeheartedly with the need and the desire of the people of South Africa, of all races and all parties, for a state of peaceful co-existence and fruitful co-operation with the states of Afrca, we believe that it cannot be achieved either by wishful thinking or by ad hoc, half-baked measures. We believe that there must be proper planning, more positive, more realistic and more urgent progress towards the achievement of that state of peaceful co-existence. Time is one of the factors of which we are short; time is one of the things that we cannot play with, because with each passing year we lose time which we can never regain. The purpose of our amendment is to pin-point what we believe to be the urgency plus the need for greater planning and greater intensity in our efforts to achieve the objectives set out by the hon. member for Middelland. Therefore whilst we are the first people to express our joy when progress is made in any field, just as the hon. member for Bezuidenhout conveyed his congratulations and expressed our wholehearted support of the attitude of the hon. the Prime Minister in his dealings with the Prime Minister of Lesotho, so in the other fields in which progress has been made, the Government has our full support, but we believe that it must go further than that and that it must go faster than it is going to-day. I regret that I cannot accept that everything in the garden is as rosy as the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs has indicated. Listening to the hon. the Minister’s speech one wished that one could remain in this House instead of having to find oneself in another world when one walks out here at half past six or seven o’clock. One wished that one could remain in this happy situation outlined here by the hon. the Minister. But unfortunately we cannot remain here. We are going to have to go out tonight and if we are unfortunate enough to have to listen to “Current Affairs” we are going to hear of the unfairness of the attacks made on South Africa by the states of Africa and of all the evil that takes place in those countries. That reality is thrown at us day after day, so we cannot remain in the atmosphere of this debate; we must go out and face those other realities, the things which the hon. the Minister did not tell us about. I have very little time at my disposal and so I cannot deal at any length with the detail of the hon. the Minister’s speech. I want to take the opportunity, however, to put forward an idea which I had framed as a private member’s motion but which fell away in view of the priority of this motion. This is one of the practical suggestions which could be applied for hastening and improving contact on the technical and economic level with the states of Africa. I want to put to the Minister the suggestion that we should create in South Africa an organization of voluntary specialists in the various fields who would be available to assist those states who are friendly towards us and willing to accept such assistance. Thereby, instead of the ad hoc kind of contact which the hon. the Minister himself sketched, instead of aiding one country with mineral development and another with another problem, instead of individual assistance such as is being given to Lesotho by two prominent South African citizens, namely the principal of the Natal University and a leading industrialist, assistance could be co-ordinated into a planned machine. I am thinking of something on a much higher level as far as technical skill is concerned than the American Peace Corps but nevertheless something along those lines where specialists in the various fields in which African nations require assistance could be co-ordinated by the Government, financed where necessary by the Government, and placed at the disposal of the states of Africa. We here in South Africa have at our disposal people far better acquainted with the problems and individual characteristics of the African continent than many of the countries who are to-day lending aid to Africa. We know the problems of Africa and we know the peoples of Africa. We know the peculiar circumstances which you cannot learn in books and which are part of the feel of being part of the continent itself. Just as members on that side, so we too accept that South Africa is a permanent and integral part of the African continent.

That knowledge and that feel for Africa is something which we should be making available on a much larger scale and on a much better planned basis than the giving of ad hoc assistance wherever we can slip it in in regard to one or other isolated problem. The fields in which we can assist are for instance, education, soil conservation, water conservation, mining, transport, communications, and all those other fields where our conditions and our problems are similar to those of the rest of the continent. Instead of that we stand back and we allow other countries less conversant with the needs and problems of Africa to give the assistance and therefore to exercise their indirect influence on the progress of many states. I feel that the Government should give a lead in this regard. It is all very well having a foreign aid committee with the Secretary for Foreign Affairs as the chairman but that aid should make use of the best of the brains available from the whole of our country and should channel that assistance wherever it can be used and wherever it will be accepted. One could deal at some length with the sort of work which could be done and the sort of assistance that could be given. One could deal at length with the sort of problem in regard to which we could give guidance where other countries may not be able to do so, but I think the issue is so clear, it is so straightforward and understandable that one does not need to go into those details.

This is one of the positive practical suggestions amongst many others which could and should be considered to try to speed the tempo at which we can build up our friendship and co-operation with those States willing to work with us. In building up that co-operation we will have to face many of the problems listed by the hon. member for Middelland and it is no use our bluffing ourselves that we can close our eyes to the realities or the hurdles which we will have to cross before we achieve the ideal of co-operation. Those hurdles are the hurdles of the Government’s own making in many cases and which the hon. Minister for Foreign Affairs has got to jump. He has an unenviable problem and task because he is fighting not only the outside world but he is also to a large extent fighting against the deeds of his own Government and his own party. It is in that sense that we will have to take a broader look at our approach to the problems of international co-existence within the African continent. Therefore we on this side of the House, supporting as we do the ideal and the aim of this motion, cannot accept that we have gone far or fast enough and we in our amendment urge the Government to take more active, more realistic and more urgent steps to achieve that ideal. I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate, I am, possibly to the surprise of hon. members, not going to be political at all. I am going to try to keep the whole question of for instance the race relations in South Africa out of this very important issue to-day. I do so for several reasons because I think that I have made my attitude on this aspect of the matter very clear on innumerable occasions and pointed out the need for change if basic relationships between ourselves and the rest of the world, let alone the African continent, are to change. Therefore I do not want to repeat any of those quite obvious things that I have said before. Furthermore, other members in the House to-day have I think highlighted this aspect of the problem. I want instead to make one or two practical suggestions to the hon. the Minister which I believe will speed up the process that he outlined for us this afternoon, a process which all of us are I am sure very glad to have learnt about and one to which, I must say, more publicity should be given. I feel that possibly the Government itself fails to highlight the better aspects of its own actions in the field of foreign relations. I think that there are many hon. members in this House who did not have full knowledge of the various steps which have been taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Yes, but there are good reasons why we should not broadcast everything we do.

I understand that they are good reasons why one does not broadcast everything that the Department of Foreign Affairs does, but I can see no good reason why the public of South Africa, the African States and the world at large should not be told of the positive efforts that South Africa is making to assist the under-developed countries in Africa. I can see no good reason why in fact these good aspects of South Africa should be kept from the world. We are always complaining about the unfavourable publicity we get overseas. It may in some measure be due to the fact that we do not bother to put out any of the good news about South Africa. I think that we might have a better reception overseas if we did put out this good news.

The hon. the Minister has told us that there are many technicians who are South Africans working in the rest of Africa and that we are available for advice and consultation on many of the problems confronting the African States. This of course is as it should be. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Point that of course there are other countries that are doing far more in Africa than we are. I am not talking of the very rich countries like the U.S.A. whose last annual expenditure, to my knowledge, on aid for Africa came to as much as $200 million. I am not discussing countries of that magnitude and with those resources to spend. I am not even discussing the amount of aid given for instance by Britain to the African territories, or even France. I am talking of a small country like Israel which has done a remarkable job and I think the hon. Minister knows that they are…

They do not have a hostile climate against them.

Well, they do not have a hostile climate against them because they do not have a racial policy similar to that of this country. [Interjections.]

An HON. MEMBER; Did you say that they do not have a racial problem?

No, I did not say that. I said they do not have a policy of discrimination. I should like to keep this on a nonpolitical basis, but it seems that I am not going to be allowed to do so. The point is that a country that small is able to send hundreds of technicians to the African countries. This is naturally being responded to with a great deal of friendship from those African states, and indeed the other way around as well. They invite African students to come to Israel to attend their university to acquire knowledge at first-hand. It might interest hon. members to know that when I paid a visit to Israel a few years ago I was interested to find Africans studying at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, one from French-speaking Africa and one from English-speaking Africa. The interesting thing is that the only common language that these two African students had was Hebrew. There they were, conversing in Hebrew. The whole atmosphere of friendship and exchange has been engendered by this type of assistance. I believe that we could be doing far more in this field. We have, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) rightly said, a first-hand knowledge of conditions in Africa, namely climatic conditions, conditions of the soil, geographical conditions and geological factors, etc., and in these fields we could render enormous assistance to our African neighbours. I would say that the hon. the Minister should not hesitate to ask for further allocations of money in order to extend our programme of technical and other assistance to the rest of Africa. Let us spend less on defence and more on this form of buying friendship. It will pay more handsomely and I assure this House that the dividends will be far greater. It was the American Secretary for Defence who said that one can go just so far in purchasing peace by buying military hardware. I think we have gone far enough in our purchases of military hardware. We should now be doing something about buying friendship. That would be a much more important commodity for future generations.

Is it paying off in England?

Yes, I think it is paying off, strangely enough. One of the ways in which we can do this, apart from rendering high-level technical assistance, which I think we are obviously in a good position to do, is for us to take a positive interest in the difficulties encountered by the under-developed African states in establishing themselves as stable trading nations of the world. The hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know all about organizations such as E.C.A. and organizations such as the United Nations Committee for Trade and Development, U.N.C.T.A.D., as it is called, with the 77 developing nations that belong to it, which are going to have a meeting sometime this year. They are going to attempt to achieve a stabilization of prices of crops, for instance. One of the great difficulties of the African states is that many of them are onecrop exporting countries and they have the most tremendous difficulty because prices are not stabilized throughout the world. South Africa should be making encouraging noises in the international trade circles in which she moves about the stabilization of prices of these staple crops from the African countries. This is one very important thing which could be done to help these countries become more economically viable. This is their main problem. They are all learning that economic independence must of necessity carry with it some form of economic viability if there is to be any future for them.

The other thing that we can do, which I believe is important, is to assist in the establishment of some form of preferences in African trade to assist those countries to get on their feet as exporting countries. I think this is very important. That would be another way in which we could assist them.

Sir, I do not know—in fact, this is one of the things the hon. the Minister deemed it better for us not to know—what we are doing about contributing to the Growth and Aid Fund which has been set up for the underdeveloped countries. I believe that the ideal to be aimed at has been estimated at 1% of gross national product to be given by developed countries for this fund to assist the under-developed countries. The figure of 1% has not been attained by anybody. I think the country which has come the closest to this figure is France with a figure of .67%.

Our own problem is that we have so many of our own under-developed areas.

Yes, I fully appreciate that we have under-developed areas within our own country. Of course, my solution to that is for us to consider South Africa as one economic unit and to allow White capital and enterprise to assist in the development of those areas and not to rely only on governmental sources as we are doing at the present stage. My attitude towards that is naturally different from that of the hon. the Minister. We clearly must do something about making our contribution towards the development of the under-developed countries if we want to keep our place and our prestige as one of the modern industrial countries of the world, which I believe we certainly should be rated as, or certainly will be in the near future.

Finally I want to say that there is a third way in which we can assist. That is in the establishment of something at a lower level than the one suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) namely, the technical assistance which we should be giving to these countries. I believe that we should be establishing something on the lines of the American Peace Corps. I think that would be an excellent thing for us to do not only from the point of view of improving the race relations and the human relations with the other African states, but also to give our own young people an outlet of service. I think this is very important in South Africa.

Is the Peace Corps successful?

Yes, the Peace Corps is very successful. I shall come to that in a minute. Our young people should be given the opportunity of volunteering for service in our own reserves, in the adjoining territories such as the former High Commission Territories (now the two independent territories and Swaziland) and in the other states of Africa. America and Britain are both doing magnificent work in this field. This is not highly qualified technical assistance. These corps, both the British Overseas Voluntary Service Corps and the American Peace Corps, the first of which was established in 1958 and the last-mentioned one by the Kennedy Administration in 1961, are aimed at young people who generally spend a year after leaving school and before going to university in this way, or otherwise go after they have attained their degrees at university and before they have embarked on their full-time careers. In other words, they offer a year or two of service.

Immature people.

They may be immature people, Sir, but they are nevertheless people with the spirit of service. This is very important for young people and the hon. member should not sneer at it. It is something which is very important. At the present stage there are something like 12,000 to 14,000 young Americans working in 46 countries all over the world. Many of them are working in East Africa and in West Africa. They are bringing assistance; they are teaching; they are helping to build; they are nursing; they are teaching the elements of agriculture, of hygiene, to people who badly need such instruction. In Britain too there is a voluntary service organization under whose auspices young British people are working in every country in the world, and in particular in Africa. It seems to me that it would be an excellent thing for the South African Government, not to run such an organization, but for the Government simply to give its blessing and some financial aid and allow this to arise out of the voluntary efforts of the young people themselves. [Interjection.] The hon. member is distressed at the thought. Has he no confidence in the ability of our young people to give as good service in under-developed countries as the young people of Britain and America? I may say that many other countries have started these corps as well. The territories themselves are learning by example and are using their own more educated people in turn to render service in their less developed areas. I believe that this would be an excellent way for South Africa to assist those countries and at the same time to earn a great deal of goodwill for South Africa. I believe it would be an excellent thing for our own young people to be given this opportunity for service.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great interest that I listened to the hon. member for Houghton. Her speech was to a great extent merely another attempt to present her policy of integration here in the House of Assembly. The hon. member accused the hon. the Minister of according insufficient publicity to these attempts and assistance which is being rendered from time to time by his Department to Africa states. But the hon. member must bear in mind that there are many matters—as the hon. the Minister rightly stated by way of interjection—which are in a delicate state of negotiation, and if these matters were now to be given loud publicity it would only afford the hon. member and her party another opportunity of confounding our diplomatic relations abroad. From what I could gather from the criticism which has in the past been levelled by the hon. member and her party both here and abroad, it is clear that their only aim is to place every possible obstacle in the way of the Government and of this hon. Minister so that our overseas policy may not succeed. She also referred to the number of technicians being sent by Israel to African countries, but she omitted to say that they never sent any to Arabian countries. Now I also want to say to the hon. member that these things are not all done for altruistic reasons. She is probably as aware as other hon. members are that Israel to-day is as great a diplomatic problem at the United Nations as South Africa is. To a certain extent they are sending these people in order to gain favour for their country when voting takes place at U.N. I see nothing wrong in that but I just want to point out to the hon. member that that is one of the principal reasons why a small country like Israel, with such a small population, is sending so many technicians and people to African countries.

I now wish to return to this idea of a peace corps which is being advocated by the hon. member. As we all know this peace corps has had a very tragic history for there are few countries in which the corps had been successful. I wish to refer to only one example and that is the tremendous faux pas which a woman member of the peace corps made a few years ago in Nigeria when she sent a letter to a family member in America in which she criticised very severely the conditions which she had encountered in Nigeria, inter alia, the extremely unhygienic conditions in which the natives there were living. It caused such a tremendous furore and the repercussions were so widespread that the lady in question had to be recalled to America.

With one example you condemn the whole scheme.

There are very few cases in Africa where the scheme has really succeeded. The plea made here by the hon. member, namely that White boys and girls from South Africa be sent to neighbouring countries, is merely another clever political wile to try and promote political integration between Whites and non-Whites so that they can, at that impressionable and indoctrinable stage in their lives, come into contact with integrated social conditions.

In conclusion I just want to say the following. It was with great interest that I listened to the hon. the Minister and that anecdote he told us about the consul—a certain Piet Grobler—who in President Paul Kruger’s time was sent to Matabeleland. It seems to me it is a dangerous diplomatic post. If one considers what is happening in Africa today, if one considers what happened to General Ironsi and Tafewa Balewa in Nigeria, where they were thrown to the vultures, then I should like to request the hon. the Minister here this afternoon preferably to make use of roving ambassadors.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendment lapsed.

In connection with this clause I yesterday drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in terms of the objects of the Act, as defined, the fund was only set aside for wool stabilization, and that it would not seem to us as though the stabilization of the price of wool sacks was one of the objects that could be included under “wool stabilization”. The hon. the Minister said in his reply that the “stabilization” of the price of wool sacks might perhaps be interpreted as being part of “wool stabilization”. I do not want to go into the matter much further, because it seems to me as if it is a wild flight of the imagination to think that, whereas the fund was established solely for wool stabilization, the acquisition or financing or manufacturing of the containers can have anything to do with “wool stabilization”. However, I want to accept the hon. the Minister’s assurance where he said that the acquisition and the manufacturing of sacks have all along been subject to the approval of the Minister. By way of repetition I want to remind the hon. the Minister that I have gone into the matter again and that the representations of the British Wool Commission were made without the consent of the woolgrowers, to whom the promise was made originally that this Fund would be used solely for “wool stabilization” and the marketing of wool, and that the representations made by the Wool Commission that the interest earned by the Fund may be used for the promotion of the marketing of wool were refused. While the Woolgrowers’ Organization has not approved of the representations, I want to accept the assurance of the hon. the Minister on behalf of this side of the House that he will take the utmost care to ensure that this money will be used only in exceptional circumstances and that such use will be restricted to the minimum, because it can so easily happen that considerable amounts of this reserve fund will have to be used to purchase or manufacture wool sacks or to keep them in stock with a view to eventualities that may arise.

I want to bring one more point to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Nowhere in the Wool Commission Act is it laid down that sacks may be handled by woolbrokers only. Any organization who handles containers or bags will be allowed to handle these sacks, and as far as this side of the House is concerned we have no assurance at all that any organization who handles sacks at this stage is so financially sound that the farmer would run no risk of losing part of these amounts. If the hon. the Minister can give us this assurance we shall accept it in that spirit.

The Act provides that the Wool Commission may purchase containers and sacks, which in its turn it may sell to brokers or other organizations that want to make sacks available to the wool farmer. It goes without saying, of course, that the Wool Commission will have to satisfy itself that it will be able to recover the money from the person who buys the sacks. The Wool Commission may lay down the conditions of sale to the buyer. I therefore do not think there is any danger that they will lose money on the sale of sacks. After all, there are enough organizations which distribute wool sacks and which are in a sufficiently sound financial position to pay the Wool Commission the purchase price.

The hon. member also raised another point, on which I just want to give him this assurance: The hon. member will remember that in the years when he was still chairman of the Wool Board, I insisted that the Wool Commission should be a separate commission under the jurisdiction of the Wool Board, for the important reason that one could not always distinguish between the finances of the Wool Board and those of the Wool Commission. At that time one could not say precisely what the administrative costs of each of those two bodies were, and it could very easily happen that some of the administrative costs of the Wool Commission were debited against the Wool Board, or vice versa, and for that reason we introduced legislation to establish a separate commission. The idea is, of course, that these funds should be used for this purpose only and that if the Wool Board wants funds for its own purposes, it should obtain such funds by increasing its levies. They cannot use interest, and so forth, earned by the Wool Commission for their own purposes; that is assurance that this aspect will be watched closely.

The hon. member said that it was very difficult to see how one could relate one’s stabilization scheme to this function which is now being entrusted to the Wool Commission. What is the purpose of the stabilization scheme? The purpose of the stabilization scheme is to support the wool market and to ensure that the producer receives the best price in case the price drops too low. If circumstances are such that one has to supply the sacks or containers through other organizations, which would make it more expensive for the producer to get those sacks, and if the Wool Commission, by carrying out this function, can supply the producer with the wool sacks at a price lower than that at which any other organization can supply them, one can regard it as a function that is performed to ensure that the farmer gets a higher price, because, after all, that forms part of his production costs. If one wants to carry out the aims of the Act meticulously this speaks for itself, of course, and the very reason why we are coming to Parliament is to amend the Act so as to provide for this additional function. The Marketing Act provides that in certain instances where this situation arises, certain boards may be granted additional powers. What we are doing now is, therefore, not inconsistent with the spirit of the Marketing Act. I have merely mentioned the fact that if under such circumstances one can get one’s container at a cheaper price than that at which it can be had through the normal channels of trade, the wool farmer must benefit by it, because it actually increases his price and in that respect one may to a certain extent regard this as a stabilizing function. I do not want to go into the matter any further; I think the hon. member is satisfied. Furthermore, I want to give him the assurance that the Wool Commission has to obtain the approval of the Minister for any money it spends and that all recommendations are investigated by the Marketing Council as far as the utilization of funds is concerned. As far as the question of control is concerned, the hon. member need have no fear. I think the hon. member himself has had the experience in his time that he was sometimes rather dissatisfied because the control of the Minister was somewhat too strict.

Mr. Chairman, I do not have any misgivings about the acquisition of woolsacks by means of money being provided to the Wool Commission. I am concerned about one thing, however, and that is the quality of the woolsacks. If a large amount of money is made available and if a large quantity of sacks is purchased, it is just possible that it may eventually prove to be a waste of money, because the quality of the woolsacks supplied to farmers at present is such that the sacks are virtually useless. I recently had the experience of finding it quite impossible to use woolsack grips on such sacks. One cannot use woolsack grips on the sacks for fear of tearing the sacks to pieces. Until such time as we have carried out sufficient research in order to get a proper sack which serves its purpose, it will perhaps not be advisable to buy large quantities of woolsacks, even though they may be obtained at a cheaper price. They may pile up in great quantities later due to the fact that there is no market for them. It is for that reason that I want to ask the Minister not to give his consent for something like that until he has seen to it that a proper sack is manufactured which will be able to withstand handling. It happens so often that wool is loaded onto railway-trucks, and despite the fact that all precautions are taken to clean the trucks, there remains sufficient dirt to dirty the wool if the woolsack is torn. The wool then reaches the port and a certain quantity is thrown aside by the broker or the buyer, which means a loss to the farmer. This is a very important matter. The jute bags are not used at present. We cannot continue with the existing sacks until such time as sufficient research has been carried out to make it possible to provide the farmers with a proper sack for baling their wool.

I just want to point out that the present discussion is actually proper to a Second or Third Reading debate. This is not a discussion for the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Colesberg made the point which had been made by the hon. member for East London (City).

Yes, but I have ruled that point out of order.

The point made by the hon. member was that the wool growers in the Cape thought originally that when money became available for this purpose it would only be for the purpose of carrying out research to find the best type of container for the farmer. The Wool Commission is, of course, financially able to spend an enormous amount of money on the stock-piling of sack material.

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to raise this matter during the Third Reading debate. It really is not proper to the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, may I refer to the other point made by the hon. the Minister, namely that the reason why we have this here, is to help and indirectly to stabilize the wool farmer in that there is now…

That is a question of principle in any case. The hon. member may raise it at the Third Reading.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, in this clause it is provided that the State President will have the power to appoint an additional member from the ranks of the National Wool Growers’ Association. In the original legislation it is laid down that the Council shall consist of five members, and in subsequent clauses it is stipulated how and in which order they are to retire and how members are to be appointed. In this addition to the section provision is made for an additional member who may be appointed by the State President and who shall be nominated by the National Wool Growers’ Association, but this legislation does not give any indication as to how long he will serve on the Board and in what manner he will retire. I shall be glad if the Minister will be kind enough to tell us whether this is not a flaw in this legislation.

He will, of course, be appointed for the same period and retire in the same way as all the other members. The period for which he will be elected and his term of office will be the same as that of the other members.

Clause put and agreed to.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, in order to facilitate reference to pre-Union legislation it was decided recently to make a survey of all the legislation passed prior to 1910 which is still in force in the Republic and to incorporate such legislation in a fitting manner into existing legislation, or to re-draft it in Act form as independent measures.

Section 23 of the South African Public Library Act of 1893 of the Cape of Good Hope is such a provision, and it stipulated that the Dessinian Collection was to be kept in the South African Public Library in Cape Town. This collection, together with approximately R200 for its gradual expansion, was bequeathed by Joachim Nicholas von Dessin, Secretary of the Orphan Chamber, in 1761, with the object that it should form a basis for a public library for the benefit of the community. Originally the collection consisted of 4,565 books, mainly on statutes, theology and the classics, as well as a considerable number of other papers, including one of the two extant duplicate copies of the diary of Adam Tas. In 1820 the Dessinian Collection was transferred to the South African Public Library established by Lord Charles Somerset in 1818. In 1821 a catalogue was published and an agreement was entered into with the Dutch Reformed Church as regards control of the collection, which consists of nearly 5,000 books at present. Mr. Speaker, this is briefly the history of the collection concerned, and in this legislation we are now providing for its continued existence. The other provisions of the South African Public Library Act of 1893 were repealed as far back as 1954, and the section relating to the Dessinian Collection has been embodied in the present Bill, which also provides for the final repeal of that Act.

Mr. Speaker, the motion by the hon. the Minister that we should accept the Second Reading of this Bill will be accepted unanimously. There will not be a dissident voice. The Dessinian Collection is one of the great national treasures of South Africa and it must be a great source of pride to the consistory and congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church in Cape Town, Die Groote Kerk, that they have been entrusted with the preservation of this great treasure. It does not belong only to a church or a congregation; it is the possession of all of us and it could not be preserved in better hands. The Bill makes mention of the collection being kept in a proper and commodious part of the library building. That is of course being done. I should say that the manner in which it is being preserved better than at any time in its South Africa, and as modern as in any part of the world. This remarkable collection is now being preserved better than at any time in its history. It is remarkable when one thinks of these national treasures, these great collections, that three come to mind, namely one in the eighteenth century, the Dessinian Collection, presented to the church by Von Dessin. Then in the nineteenth century we had the great national treasure, the Sir George Grey Collection, which is also in the South African Library and now we in this House have our collection, the Mendelssohn Collection. I should like to say if I may be permitted to wander from the Bill that you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as chairman of our Library Committee have pressed for many years to obtain better housing for this great Mendelssohn Collection of ours. If we could preserve our collection in a similar manner to the Dessinian Collection, we in this House would be as proud of our collection as the congregation and the consistory of Die Groote Kerk are of theirs. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, since the passing of the principal Act in 1934 and the first Amendment Act in 1937, conditions in the country have changed to such a great extent as a result of rapid development that our conservation legislation has become somewhat obsolete. It has become necessary to streamline the legislation and in this way, too, eliminate problems which the Historical Monuments Commission have encountered in the implementation of the principal Act.

To enable the Commission to take faster and more effective action, provision is being made in the Bill for the Commission to be able to act through an Executive Committee and such other committees as the Commission may decide to nominate. As matters stand at present the Commission meets only twice a year, and all matters laid before the Commission have to stand over for the meetings. Special meetings are held from time to time but such meetings are a strain on the Commission’s funds which could be more effectively utilized if it could act through an Executive Committee and other committees. In terms of the Amendment Bill the full Commission will determine policy and the Executive Committee and other committees will then implement that policy. The Commission is authorized to assign certain of its powers and functions to the Executive Committee, and the Executive Committee, which will be able to act on the recommendation of the various committees, will be an effective body to take action in emergencies. Of course it is not the intention that the Commission and its committees should take action only in emergencies. It must, for example, not wait until a building is in danger of being torn down before it takes action. On the contrary, the Commission must tackle its work systematically, but where an emergency has arisen, it must be able to act immediately and expeditiously.

The Bill contains quite a number of finer details in regard to the appointment of a Chairman of the Commission, the election of a Vice-Chairman and the powers of both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman.

Hon. members will in fact recall that criticism has in the past been forthcoming when I, in accordance with my Department’s policy, made statutory provision for my being able, as responsible Minister, to appoint the chairmen of standing committees and commissions. In this regard I am thinking of the chairmen of the Archives Commission, the Heraldry Council and the National Film Board.

The idea is now to apply the same principle to the Monuments Commission. In terms of this Amendment Bill the present elected Chairman is regarded as having been appointed by me. The present Commission must serve until 1970 so that the present Chairman will act as Chairman at least until that date.

There are important reasons why the Minister should appoint the Chairman of the Historical Monuments Commission. This Amendment Bill also invests the Commission with wider powers. It may now also make over any of its properties in trust. It may borrow money, effect mortgages and make recommendations to the State to make contributions towards the restoration of old buildings. I am of the opinion that since the Commission is now going to be invested with these powers, it will greatly facilitate matters and bring about smoother co-operation between my Department and the Commission if I, as the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, were to appoint the Chairman as well as the members.

There is another important point in connection with the appointment of the Commission to which I wish to refer. It is namely that the committees of the Commission, with the exception of the Executive Committee, may co-opt persons who have not been appointed by me onto the committees. Naturally the membership of the Commission must be kept small—at present 13 persons are serving on it—but in order to be able to obtain the best counsel and advice, it is desirable that the services of authorities not serving on the Commission be utilized. Although, just as in the case of the members of the Commission itself, no remuneration is to be paid to such co-opted members, such members may nevertheless claim reasonable travelling and subsistence expenses from the Commission.

Members who have visited our monuments will have noticed that the Commission has erected tablets at some of them on which details of the events which took place on that spot are recorded. The information is supplied in both the official languages, as the Commission is in fact empowered to do under existing legislation. However, the Commission has, in one or two cases, made use of another language. For example it has made use of Portuguese at the Customs Gates at Komatipoort where the journey in 1725 of a company of Dutchmen from the present Lourenço Marques to what is known to-day as the South-Eastern Transvaal, is commemorated. Quite rightly, however, doubt arose as to whether, in terms of existing legislation, the Commission could make use of another language on its tablets. In terms of the Bill which is now being dealt with, the Commission will in future be able to make use of any language on its tablets which it deems fit.

Many monuments which have been declared to be such are situated off the beaten track and in such cases it is necessary for the Commission to have the power to construct and maintain roads where necessary. However, the Commission will be obliged to negotiate with the owners in question and to obtain their consent before they proceed to make such a road. I want to emphasize that with the building of such roads there is no attendant expropriation of land. I am convinced that we will receive whole-hearted co-operation on the part of the owners since they will be protected against trespassers by means of fences and gates which the Commission will be required to erect.

In the past the Commission has published writings on the proclaimed monuments of South Africa. The first publication appeared in 1941 and the second in 1949—unfortunately both publications are now out of print. The Commission also published a very interesting pamphlet on the Dingaan’s Kraal, and are at present preparing a third major publication on our monuments. In terms of existing legislation the Commission is not explicitly empowered to publish such publications, and in order to establish beyond doubt its functions in this regard the necessary provision is now being included in the Bill.

I have already said that the Commission may make over any of its property in trust and in this connection in particular it is being envisaged that the Commission will make over such property to the Simon van der Stel Foundation in trust. The Foundation is a company which, on a non-profit basis, makes the conservation and restoration of historical buildings its task. The Foundation is therefore dependent in the first instance upon contributions from the public in order to carry out its restoration function. But the Government is sympathetic towards the aims of the Foundation and gives tangible proof of this by making an annual contribution of R4,000 in order to enable the Foundation to cover its administrative costs. But more than that, the Government will also be prepared, at the request of the Foundation, to make contributions towards the restoration costs of buildings of sufficiently historic, aesthetic or architectural value to be preserved for posterity. However, it is no more than fair that the Government should refer such applications to a body of experts for recommendation, and the Historical Monuments Commission will, in terms of the Amendment Bill, consequently be instructed by me to examine all such requests and to submit to me their report and recommendations.

A few years ago the Commission experienced a grave disappointment. They wished to recommend the proclamation of the house of David Lindley to the Minister, and as it was compelled to do, the Commission notified the owner of the house of its intentions. As the owner had the right to do, he objected to the proposed proclamation, but did not let the matter rest there. No, he immediately had the house broken down before the Minister had had an opportunity of considering the recommendation of the Commission. Not only the Commission and the Minister, but also the people of South Africa, must be protected against such irresponsible behaviour. Consequently the Bill provides that when the Commission notifies an owner of its intention to recommend a proclamation, such owner may not, for a period of three months calculated from the day on which the Commission gave him such notice, alter or destroy that property. This period of three months will afford the Commission the opportunity of making its recommendation to me, and if I am convinced that the Commission has sound reasons for the proclamation, I can then proclaim it. If not, the temporary servitude lapses after three months. This is no unnecessary encumbrance which is being imposed on such owners; it is merely a fair precautionary measure against any possible vandalism.

It cannot be argued away that owners are in many cases opposed to the proclamation of their properties and that the reason for this is to be sought particularly in the fear which arises that a proclaimed property will become the property of the Commission. Nothing is further from the truth, for all that such proclamation implies is that such property may not be altered or destroyed without the permission of the Commission.

However there is a justified complaint which owners of proclaimed houses have, and that is that the public regards such a proclaimed property as a public place to which and through which they can proceed unhindered. That is a misconception on the part of the public because the fact that a property has been proclaimed does not make it a public place. The rights and privileges of the owner to privacy remain, and access to such property can only be obtained if the owner gives his explicit permission.

As has already been said, the Commission must obtain the owner’s permission when it wishes to proclaim a property. Now it sometimes happens that the Commission wishes to enlarge the proclaimed site, but in terms of existing legislation, the Commission is not obliged to obtain the owner’s permission for such enlargement. That obligation is now specifically stated in the Bill and the Commission will in future also have to obtain the owner’s permission when proposing that the area of a proclaimed monument be enlarged.

A further small change contained in the Bill, is that the owner of a proclaimed antique may not alter it without the written permission of the Commission.

The amendments already mentioned make it necessary that the powers of the Minister to make regulations should also be altered. In this way the Minister is now also being empowered to make regulations in regard to the procedure and quorum of the committees of the Commission, as well as to determine the travelling and subsistence allowances of the members of the committees.

Wherever the noun “Union” occurs in the principal Act it is now being replaced by the noun “Republic”, except in section 1 because in that section the word “Union” is used to indicate a historical condition.

Mr. Speaker, in this Bill too we are concerned with the preservation of the treasures of South Africa, these historical monuments, as the poet T. E. Brown expressed it, “to preserve whate’er is left to us of ancient heritage”. In this Bill the Historical Committee is given higher status. Their functions are extended, their activities will now be greater than they were before, and the creation of these sub-committees will make it possible for them to carry out their work more efficiently, and, possibly at greater expense. There will not be much expense, but there will be greater expense.

There are two points that occurred to me. The first one is—and I should like the hon. the Minister’s assurance on this—that subsistence and travelling allowances granted to members of the sub-committees that may be formed, will be subject to the provisions of section 12 of the Act. I am assuming it will be so, but I should like the Minister’s assurance.

The second point which I should like to mention is this. As I said, this Bill raises the status of the Historical Monuments Commission, and if that is the case, then I cannot understand why the Minister is withdrawing the gazetting of the names of members of the Commission. I believe that this point has been raised in Another Place. I should like to see the names of members of this Commission gazetted, especially this Commission, which is a very important one. There are commissions which are not as important as this one, and then it does not matter very much whether or not the members’ names appear in the Gazette. But I should like to see the names of these members appear in the Gazette. Clause 1 (1) (b) proposes the following substitution for subsection (6) of the Act—

and the following words are, in terms of this clause, deleted from the corresponding section in the Act—”and he shall notify every such appointment in the Gazette”. I accept that the Minister has the explanation that there are so many commissions and committees in South Africa to-day that it is not always desirable to mention their names in the Gazette, but this is an important one and I should like him to give us his views on this. If he does not regard it as a very important commission, I can understand it, but we on this side regard this Historical Monuments Commission as a very important one. If we could have that assurance we will support the Second Reading.

I am very pleased that the principle which one would automatically expect, namely that where tablets with information in regard to places of historic interest or national monuments are erected, it will be done in both official languages. But no provision is made here for the official languages to be given preference. I have read inscriptions on tablets where our two official languages were not given preference, and where it is now being added that, if the Commission deems it desirable, any other language may be used as well, I just feel that one will assume that the Commission will give preference to the two official languages. However, I wonder whether it would not be a good thing to include it in this measure that the two official languages will in fact be given preference. I just want to say that I have myself seen inscriptions on tablets where the two official languages were not given preference and where the Afrikaans language was relegated to third place in the inscription on the tablet.

The other matter I am merely raising in order to receive an explanation from the hon. the Minister. I want to put this question. It seems to me that the Afrikaans long title of the Bill is not as comprehensive as the English long title. The Afrikaans long title refers to the amendment of the “Wet op Nauurlike en Historiese Gedenkwaardighede en Oudhede”, and the word “monumente” has not been introduced here, while in the English long title the word “monuments” features prominently.

As far as the few remarks made by the hon. member for Koedoespoort are concerned, I merely want to say the following. In the first place, where the other language will be used, it will only be done in those cases which I have mentioned; perhaps it will be a Bantu language in cases where something of importance happened near our borders as in the recent case where the Portuguese language was used. What the hon. member said here, i.e. that preference was not given to the two official languages on tablets which were erected, is news to me. I should very much like to hear more details from him about that matter. I do not know when it happened. I hope it did not happen in the period for which I have been responsible.

Great care is taken that the official languages should receive preference. It varies, and sometimes we use first the one and then the other, and vice versa. We try to act as fairly as possible in that regard. I know the hon. member is a language expert, but as far as the long title of the Bill is concerned I am of the opinion that “gedenkwaardigheid” is such a comprehensive word in the Afrikaans language that it thoroughly embraces the concept of monuments. I do not think that the English language has a homonym for “gedenkwaardigheid”. I do not want to interfere with these things, but if it is so that the Afrikaans is less comprehensive then I want to say that we are of course dealing here with the original long title of the original Act of 1934 which we have retained because this measure is merely an Amendment Bill. We have retained it because it is indicated thus in all documents.

I have already given the hon. member for Kensington the assurance that it is in terms of section 12 that those fees are paid. In fact, there is an amendment in clause 2 on the Order Paper which the Senate could not accept owing to financial implications. It is definitely mentioned in the amendment that the tariff will, in terms of section 12, be laid down by proclamation. Then there are the names in the Government Gazette. There are literally hundreds of commissions which the Government has to deal with.

But this is a very important one.

Yes, I accept that, but every commission thinks that it is the most important one. Each commission appointed by the Government is given wide publicity through the S.A.B.C., through the Department of Information and through the Press. To-day the Government Gazette is full to the brim of the announcements of all kinds of commissions, and the Government has decided to be sparing with these kind of publications. For that reason we did not do so, and we cannot really see that it will serve any purpose, for this Commission is not one to which representations can be made. There is an office, but it is mainly a Commission which has to examine the representations which are received. The wide publicity which will already have been given it by the Press and by other bodies we deem to be sufficient to inform the entire nation in regard to the people who are doing that work.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The purpose of the Bill is to make the provisions of the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935 (Act No. 23 of 1935) applicable to the Territory of South-West Africa as well, and also to extend to that Territory the provisions of regulations which have already been promulgated or will in future be promulgated in terms of the Act.

In 1962 the Heraldry Act (Act No. 18 of 1962) was placed on the Statute Book, and in terms of that Act persons and associations in South-West Africa can now have badges registered, and such registrations are valid in both the Republic and South-West Africa.

The anomalous position has now arisen that an association, which is registered in South-West, may register its badge in order to prevent another association from using it, but it receives no protection whatsoever in respect of its name. It is essential that the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935, should now be extended to South-West Africa so that associations there will also be protected as far as their names are concerned. The amendment is being effected with the approval of the Administration of South-West Africa.

This Bill is really just a formality, assuming, of course, that hon. members for South-West Africa are satisfied. In those circumstances we on this side would support South-West Africa. It depends on what they think. If they are satisfied then we are completely satisfied.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The introduction of this Bill arises from a request received from the board of the South African Bureau of Standards and is purely administrative and domestic in nature, as hon. members have probably noticed. It purports, namely, to change the designation of the head of the South African Bureau of Standards from director to director-general.

I may explain briefly that in the field of scientific research it is customary to associate the title of director with the head of a laboratory who enters a specific scientific field. Thus the C.S.I.R., for example, has Directors of Building Research, Chemical Research, etc., and outside it the Director of the Fuel Research Institute, the State Metallurgical Laboratory, etc.

In contrast with the last-mentioned organizations the S.A.B.S. is constituted of various laboratories, each of which is just as big if not bigger than most of the above-mentioned laboratories, which all come under full directors whereas the S.A.B.S. as a whole, with the number of laboratories falling under it, is also under the management of a director. In actual fact, therefore, this state of affairs reduces the status of the Director of the S.A.B.S. as well as that of the officers in charge of the Bureau’s various laboratories, who are now of necessity designated assistant-directors. The designation director-general is in fairly common use at scientific and standards bodies in other countries. Locally we have, for example, the Director-General of the A.E.B., i.e. the Atomic Energy Board. The Bureau’s request appears to be quite reasonable, and as far as the change in the designation of its head is concerned, he will get the correct status.

That amendment is proposed in clause 1 of the Bill, whereas clauses 2 and 3, respectively, provide for the continued validity of the appointment of the present Director of the S.A.B.S. and of any steps taken in the past on behalf of or by the Director, who upon promulgation of this Bill will become the Director-General.

We on this side have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, by the introduction of this Bill in Parliament, South Africa has gone a further step in putting into legal effect the principles to which she has agreed by participating as a signatory to the Rome Convention of 1961 for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations.

Hon. members will probably call to mind that this Bill was originally introduced into Parliament during 1965 when it was referred to a Select Committee for consideration. The Select Committee finalized its deliberations before the end of that session, but unfortunately time did not permit the final adoption of the Bill by Parliament. It was re-introduced last year and had an easy passage through all its stages in the Other Place. Although an explanatory memorandum on the Bill was also tabled in 1965 for the information of hon. members, I consider it advisable, due to the time that has passed since then, to give this House a short resumé of the general background to this Bill and also to deal briefly with the more important principles involved therein.

The Republic of South Africa is a member of an international organization, generally known as the Berne Convention, which fixes the conditions subject to which copyright in literary and artistic works is accorded to the various members of the organization, numbering some 52 countries. During 1961 this Convention was supplemented by the Rome Convention, to which I have already referred in my introductory remarks.

While the Copyright Act, adopted by Parliament during the 1965 Session of Parliament, deals purely with matters relating to copyright of authors and the producers of phonograms of literary, musical, dramatic and artistic works, the Bill now before the House deals with the rights of the performers of these works.

This Bill has been drafted in consultation with the legal adviser of the European Broadcasting Union, the S.A.B.C. and a number of other organizations, amongst which were the South African Phonographic Industry, the South African Association of Authors, Composers and Music Distributors, the South African Recording Rights Association, the various Boards for Performing Arts of the Republic, etc., and judging from their reactions, all of them signified their agreement with the proposed measure.

Being a signatory to the Rome Convention does not yet entitle South Africa to participate in the material advantage of that Convention. It is encumbent upon every member country to cater by way of legislation for the terms of that Convention, and for this reason Parliament is now being asked to approve of this Bill.

Turning more specifically to the Bill itself, it will be noted that its main objective is to provide for the protection of the rights of performers of musical and other artistic works, as distinct from the protection of copyright which may exist in respect of the original works performed by them and in regard to which separate provision has been made in the Copyright Act. These rights are fully set out in clause 5, which forms the crux of this measure. In simple language they are: No person may without the consent of the performer (a) broadcast or perform in public the performer’s performances; (b) make a fixation of the unfixed performances. That means put it on a record, tape, television, etc.; and (c) make a reproduction of a fixation if that fixation was made without the performer’s consent or for purposes not included in such consent.

Clauses 3 and 4 are closely related to clause 5. While clause 5. as I have just explained, prescribes the rights of performers, clause 3 stipulates that performers will enjoy these rights provided their performances take place in the Republic. Clause 4 in its turn confers these rights on local performers in other countries which are members of the Convention, on condition that those countries provide reciprocal rights for performances which take place in the Republic.

I now come to clause 8. which corresponds with the provisions of section 7 of the Copyright Act. In this clause provision is made for general exceptions from protection in terms of the measure before the House. In short the clause provides that no infringement is being made on a performer’s rights if in terms of (a) sub-clause (1) the performer has consented to his performances being recorded in a fixation or film; (b) sub-clause (2) a performance, in whatever form, is merely used for private study, criticism or review, reporting on current events, education, research, judicial proceedings or for the demonstration of a recording, magnifying or similar instrument; and (c) subclause (3) the S.A.B.C. makes recordings or re-production without the performer’s prior consent, provided that the Corporation pays to the performer equitable remuneration, subject to arbitration or in accordance with an order of the Copyright Tribunal, if necessary. Furthermore, such recording or reproduction may be used by the S.A.B.C. only and may not be kept longer than six months unless it is of exceptional documentary value in which case the recording or reproduction must be kept in the S.A.B.C.’s archives.

I should mention that the Select Committee experienced some difficulty with the wording of subsection (3), more specifically sub-paragraph (a) (iii) thereof, and eventually agreed to an amendment which unfortunately I cannot accept after serious consideration and lengthy discussions with the Government law advisers. I, therefore, had this sub-paragraph redrafted in its original form, and also had a further provision added to it allowing for redress to the Copyright Tribunal. The difficulty experienced by the Select Committee revolved around the stipulation in clause 8 (3) (a) (iii), in terms of which the S.A.B.C. must pay “equitable” remuneration to the performer subject to arbitration, if necessary. The amendment adopted by them provides for the payment of “agreed” remuneration and drops the right to resort to arbitration, if necessary. My reason for not being able to accept the Select Committee’s amendment is the fact that the S.A.B.C. very often and at very short notice have to make broadcasts in which the performances of some or other performer are used. The performers concerned or even their addresses are not always readily available, with the result that if the Select Committee’s recommendation were to be accepted, the S.A.B.C. would be in an individious position and the clause in its entirety would be of very little value to them, and obviously also not in the interests of performers. If the S.A.B.C. must pay “agreed” remuneration it is quite clear that negotiations with the performer concerned must take place before a particular broadcast is made. Apart from this, the amendment proposed by the Select Committee will be in conflict with an already accepted principle in the Copyright Act, 1965, namely section 7 (5) (a), which permits the payment of “equitable” remuneration for the use of an author’s work.

There is yet another problem in connection with the Select Committee’s recommendation. The substitution of “equitable” by “agreed” will, if the S.A.B.C. should make use of a performance of a performer without his prior consent, subject the Corporation to court proceedings by that performer in order to have remuneration fixed which the performer considers reasonable. In other words, resort will in any event have to be taken to our courts if agreement cannot be reached. On the other hand in cases such as this it can be argued that if the S.A.B.C. uses a performance without prior agreement as to remuneration, such action amounts to infringement on the rights of the performer in terms of clause 10. The result will be that the S.A.B.C. will continually run the risk of prosecutions for infringement of the rights of performers. It is abundantly clear that the Select Committee’s amendment will cause many unnecessary court actions to the embarrassment of the S.A.B.C., while to my mind the original wording cannot be to the detriment of either the S.A.B.C. or the performer. I trust, therefore, that the House will agree with my reversion to the original wording of this sub-paragraph.

As is customary with legislation of this nature, provision is also made for penalties and the payment of damages for infringement of rights (see clause 9 of the Bill).

There is only one more clause which I wish to mention at this stage and that is clause 12. In this clause protection is given to a person who makes a recording, film or broadcast of a performance with the consent of another person who purports to have the necessary authority to give such consent. Where it is found that the consent in question has been given without the authority of the performer concerned, the maker of the recording, broadcast, or film, etc., shall not be guilty of an offence. The person who acted without such authority shall, however, be liable to a fine or imprisonment or both.

In summarizing, the Bill aims at the prevention of the exploitation of a performer’s talents without his consent. Apart from fulfilling South Africa’s international obligations in this regard, it will certainly meet a long-felt want on the part of performers, and should, if accepted by Parliament, do much to encourage and promote local talent.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister pointed out, this is really a Bill which is complementary to the Copyright Bill which was passed by this House a few years ago in that it seeks to protect the rights of the performers, whereas the Copyright Bill protected the rights of composers and authors. This Bill therefore is in line with the legislation we have previously passed and conforms with the requirements of our membership of the Berne Convention. The Deputy Minister has assured us that all interested parties have been consulted, and that they are satisfied with the measure. Therefore, whilst there may be some comment on one or two clauses in the Committee Stage—the Minister has told us for instance that there is one clause in regard to which he had not been able to accept the Select Committee’s recommendation—we have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, as a result of constant research and scientific progress both overseas and in the Republic it is now possible to mix explosives consisting of a mixture of ammonium nitrate and non-explosive component parts at the blasting place where they are needed, for immediate use, with the result that it is no longer necessary in all cases to convey the explosives to the blasting place by rail or by road, or whatever the case may be. These modern techniques are actually safer, therefore, and in many cases people prefer them to the conventional methods. But in section 4 the Explosives Act provides only for the manufacture of authorized explosives in a licensed factory, and it has therefore become necessary to amend the Act in order that the modern techniques which I have just explained may be used.

We have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments contained in this Bill are aimed mainly at bringing the provisions in the principal Act that relate to security by auctioneers, agents and factors who sell livestock or agricultural produce, into line with the corresponding provisions in the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961 (Act No. 2 of 1961), which relate to commission agents. In terms of section 6 (1) of the principal Act a registered co-operative agricultural society or company is, inter alia, exempted altogether from giving security. All other concerns which do not enjoy such exemption are required to give security to the satisfaction of the Minister for the fulfilment of their obligations as auctioneers, agents or factors in respect of any person from whom they have received livestock or agricultural produce for sale. It is now proposed to provide that co-operative agricultural societies and co-operative agricultural companies which are auctioneers, agents or factors for the purposes of the principal Act, will be exempted from security only in respect of the sale of livestock and agricultural produce on behalf of their members. Where such business is undertaken on behalf of non-members, co-operative agricultural societies and companies will be required to give security in respect of that business. The same principles are already of application in the case of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act, 1961. In view of the fact that farmers’ special co-operative companies do business on the same basis as co-operative agricultural societies and co-operative agricultural companies, it is further proposed that these provisions should also apply to farmers’ special co-operative companies, as in the case of the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act. It is also provided that the required security be given to the satisfaction of the Secretary for Agricultural Economics and Marketing or an officer designated by him, instead of to the satisfaction of the Minister, as at present. This proposed amendment will also bring the relevant provision into line with the corresponding provision in the Perishable Agricultural Produce Sales Act. As far as the maximum amount of the required security is concerned, it is felt that increasing it is justified at this stage. The present maximum is fixed at R5,000 and it is proposed that it be increased to R 15,000, which is regarded as adequate.

The wording of section 6 of the principal Act has also been revised to set out more clearly the purpose for which security is given, but this does not bring about any change in the present position. It is now stated specifically, for example, that the taxed costs of any action for the recovery of the proceeds of livestock and produce may be paid from the security. In accordance with the notice with regard to security published in terms of the principal Act, such taxed costs have always been allowed as a claim against the security. On the other hand it has never been the intention that interest on the proceeds of livestock and produce which an auctioneer, agent or factor may owe the seller, should be payable from the security. It would in any event give rise to almost insurmountable administrative problems if such interest were also allowed as a claim against the security.

For the rest, only consequential and formal amendments are made to the definitions in the Act, and provision is made for the decimalization of the amounts mentioned therein. The Federation of Livestock Auctioneers of South Africa, which has a direct interest in this Bill, has been consulted and approves the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to this legislation because we realize that anyone acting as an agent or broker for a farmer’s produce should give due security. In the past it was frequently our experience when such people acted as brokers, whether as a company or as a co-operation, that farmers suffered heavy losses because something went wrong with such an institution. Therefore we on this side of the House have no objection to the principle of the Bill. Of course it is also correct that the co-operations acting as brokers for their members’ produce should be excluded from the obligation of giving security.

The question does arise that some directors of co-operations feel that because they market farmers’ produce and have dealings with such non-members it is perhaps unfair that they will now also have to give security in cases where they act as brokers for nonmembers. Nevertheless, I want to say that in general we on this side of the House have no objection to the Bill. We think that the hon. the Minister is acting correctly. Whenever steps are taken to tighten up and improve the marketing facilities of a farmer, we on this side of the House are always prepared to lend our support. We feel that this is an important aspect of the farmer’s industry, and that not only his production but also the marketing of his produce is important; we therefore support this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, during 1961 it was decided to withdraw certain portions of the forest lands in the Tsitsikama from demarcation and to declare them a national park. After the withdrawal the Department of Forestry had no further interest in the land, but neither was it possible to proceed immediately to the proclamation of the Tsitsikama Forest and Coast Park. Pending proclamation control over the land was therefore transferred to the Parks Board in the meantime.

Certain improvements to existing buildings had to be made urgently. The bungalows which had been let by the Department of Forestry had to be maintained and let to the public by the Parks Board, and roads as well as accommodation for the Board’s officials demanded further expenditure. Naturally the Board kept the revenue collected from letting the bungalows and from campers for its own account, to reimburse it in part for its abovementioned expenditure.

The Controller and Auditor-General, however, queried the authority of the Parks Board to incur any expenditure in connection with and on the lands purchased with a view to a new national park or to addition to an existing national park, but which has not yet been proclaimed as such. It is naturally inevitable that such expenditure will be incurred, and in order to set the matter right legislation was passed last year to the effect that the Board, if authorized to do so by the Minister, may inquire into the question of whether or not it would be desirable to declare any area a park or to declare any land part of a park. The Controller and Auditor-General is of the opinion, however, that the amendment was not phrased widely enough to authorize the Board to incur provisional capital expenditure, i.e. prior to the date of proclamation, of a capital or administrative nature, or to collect fees in respect of proposed parks. The law advisors agree with the views of the Controller and Auditor-General; hence the amendment as contained in clause 2.

Until now the closing date of the financial year of the Parks Board was 31st October. The date 31st October fitted in better with the seasonal activities in the Kruger National Park, but in view of the fact that a considerably larger portion of the park is now kept open throughout the year, and that for practical purposes it is preferable for the financial year of the Board to coincide with that of the State, it is now provided that the financial year of the Board will also end on 31st March. This will apply as from 1st April, 1966. In other words, it will be of retrospective effect.

A further matter which is set right is the question of the opening and closing hours of shops situated inside national parks. At present it is the position that shops situated inside such parks are subject to the provisions of the various provincial ordinances relating to opening and closing hours. In view of the exceptional nature and scope of the services provided by the Parks Board for the benefit and enjoyment of visitors to parks in the various provinces, it is extremely difficult, with a view to the sound administration of such parks, to abide by the divergent provisions of the various relevant provincial ordinances. You yourself know, Mr. Speaker, that if one wants to go out in the morning to see lions one should not wait until the shop is open. Nor does one want to return any earlier than necessary in order to find the shops open, and that is why this correction is now made.

The hours should also be extended.

The measure provides for that as well. In the Transvaal the shops in the Kruger National Park, and in the Free State those in the Willem Pretorius Game Park and the Jim Fouché Holiday or Angling Resort, have already been excluded from the provisions relating to shopping hours. The provincial administrations have been consulted and they had no objection to the proposed amendment contained in clause 4, in terms of which the various provincial ordinances relating to shopping hours shall have no force or effect in a national park. I move accordingly, Mr. Speaker.

May I say at once, Sir, that we on this side are going to support the second reading of this Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 are really straightforward administrative matters. I think that the provision contained in clause 2 is a very wise one. The Deputy Minister has explained what has happened in connection with the Tsitsikama Reserve, and it is quite clear that there should be some legal process whereby one can meet the expenses incurred when investigations are being made into the necessity or desirability of an area being proclaimed as a reserve before such a proclamation is in fact made.

We almost had the same trouble in regard to the Augrabies Waterfall.

Well, the provision in clause 2 takes care of all that; it deals with a matter which is from a financial point of view rather untidy, and it deals with it very satisfactorily as far as we are concerned.

Clause 3 is quite straightforward; it is a matter relating to the Auditor-General with which we agree. As far as clause 4 is concerned, I must state that we on this side of the House will always look very carefully at any infringing on the powers of the provinces, but I am glad to have the assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that in the case of the reserves which he has quoted, the provinces have indicated that they have no objection to the provisions of clause 4. In fact, Sir, I think that in its own right this provision is a good one, because one cannot have two authorities in charge of these institutions like stores and public amenities. These things may be dealt with by means of a provincial ordinance, and then they may happen to fall foul of the regulations made under the National Parks Act.

As I said, Sir, we on this side have no objection and we support the second reading of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, as a result of changed practices which came to the attention of my Department, it has become necessary to make certain amendments to the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957. During the past few years hon. members of this House pointed out during discussions of agricultural matters that there were certain anomalies in the nursery industry that should be set right by means of legislation.

My Department endeavours to ensure that plant material leaving registered nurseries is free from disease as far as possible. The proposed legislation will make it possible to apply that control more effectively. Although we still receive frequent complaints that nurseries do not sell the material ordered, that is something which cannot be controlled by my Department. Such cases should be reported to the South African Nurserymen’s Association, because most of the growers are members of that Association and a quality stipulation is enforced there. In other words, we want to give the growers themselves the opportunity of protecting themselves and assuring the world that they will supply good plant material. This amending Bill, which bears the approval of the relevant concerns and of which I just want to mention the main points, was drafted pursuant to consultations with the S.A.A.U. and the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association.

Firstly, under the new definition of “nursery” all premises on which plants are grown, except for private use, will be required to be registered as nurseries in terms of the Act. This will eliminate the practice of some people to sell their surplus plants.

The registration of premises of non-growers who sell plants will also be compulsory. This will provide the Department with a list of chain stores and other undertakings that sell plants, in order that they may also be inspected from time to time with a view to plant diseases and pests. Such sellers, however. will pay a considerably lower registration fee than growers themselves. That means that any person who sells, whether a chain store, shop or a grower for personal purposes, will be required to be registered as soon as he decides to sell, and thus the Department will have a list of sellers at hand.

Secondly, the insertion of the definition of “sell” now also includes “offer, advertise, keep, display, dispatch, convey or deliver for sale, or exchange, or dispose of for any consideration whatsoever, or dispatch, convey or deliver in pursuance of a sale, exchange or disposal as aforesaid”. Under the existing provisions of the Act a person must first actually sell a plant in conflict with the provisions of the Act before he can be prosecuted for an offence.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, additional requirements are laid down for the registration of nurseries and for affixing the name and address of both the grower and the seller to the plant or the container in which it grows or is packed. In other words, it will no longer be possible for one grower to accept plants from another and sell them under his own name only; he will also have to affix to the plant the name of the nursery which grew the plant and sold it to him. This will facilitate the tracing and more effective control of possible diseases in nurseries.

In the fourth place, stricter control over the lifting, removal or destruction of plants in nurseries which are under quarantine is contemplated. Under the existing provisions of the Act it is difficult to exercise control effectively as it is quite frequently found upon re-inspection with a view to cancellation of quarantine that the plants placed under quarantine are no longer on the premises of the nursery. In defence the grower or seller usually asserts that the plants concerned have died or have been destroyed by him in order to do away with the infection, and although the containers are usually shown, it is frequently suspected that the plants have been sold. As the infection is no longer in evidence, quarantine has to be lifted and the grower or seller cannot be prosecuted because it cannot be proved that he removed the plants or had them removed.

Finally, Sir, because the Agricultural Pests Act, 1957, as amended, already contains all the provisions of the Psorosis Act, 1927, it is proposed that the latter Act be repealed in its entirety.

The object of this Bill is therefore to see to it that the general public and our farmers in particular obtain plant material that will be free of diseases, and I trust the House will give it its kind support.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we do not oppose the Second Reading. We welcome the Bill and its provisions, particularly in view of the last reasons mentioned by the hon. the Deputy Minister, namely to ensure as far as possible that the plants, shrubs and trees sold for planting vineyards and orchards will be as free from diseases as possible. It is mainly for those reasons that we want to support the hon. the Minister. But I think the most important reason to support him is that there are so many people who grow plants which end up in the hands of other growers somehow or other and are sold under the names of those growers and are frequently not only infected with diseases, but are not good material either. If this will enable the hon. the Minister to have somewhat more control over that kind of thing, I believe that it will be to the advantage of our fruit industry and of the wine industry, and even of people who have ornamental trees in their gardens.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

I can assure this House that there is at least one member of the Soil Conservation Board, the hon. member for Natal, who has been waiting for this Bill for a long time, because it is an extremely important Bill as far as they are concerned. On the occasion of the motion for the Second Reading of this measure it is not necessary for me to give a detailed explanation of it. As we all know, the Soil Conservation Act of 1946 is probably the most democratic Act which has ever been placed on the Statute Book. It is a measure that was welcomed on all sides at the time, because it was felt that urgent and firm action was necessary to combat the erosion of our soil and to protect our veld and our water sources. My Department realized full well that the success of such a measure and the progress made with its application would depend very largely on the initiative and co-operation of the farming community itself. The Department realized only too well that it was easier and far more effective to guide a farmer than to coerce him, and I want to say here that this Bill is intended to enable the farmer to preserve the soil both for himself and for his descendants. Therefore we only want to guide the farmer and therefore this is a democratic Bill.

One can feel proud of the success which has already been achieved as far as soil conservation is concerned, and the co-operation which a large part of the farming community has given to this grand effort, sometimes under difficult circumstances, is praiseworthy and is fully appreciated. We are all familiar with these aspects and it is probably not necessary for me to go into them any further.

Although the Soil Conservation Act is, as has been mentioned, a most democratic one, it is nevertheless necessary to make smaller changes of a non-contentious nature from time to time in order to adapt to changed circumstances. The amendments which I am submitting to this House to-day are in the same spirit, and I should like to mention the most important of them.

During 1960 the principal Act was amended to include under the definition of “occupier” all persons who as lessees or otherwise had the management, charge or use of land or any person who had the right to cut trees or wood, and also “bywoners” or “deelsaaiers”. But not only these groups were included under the definition of “occupier”. It went further and also included labour tenants or squatters or servants as defined in the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936. The intention was that it should also be possible to compel these persons to apply soil conservation. We are all familiar with conditions in certain districts of the country where large numbers of squatters live on farms. Subsequent to the 1960 amendment my Department was faced with the practical problem that soil conservation plans also had to be served on all squatters as “occupiers”. That is precisely where the great difficulty lies in Natal. The hon. member for South Coast will know of all the labour farms in that province, and now the Act provides that we must serve the soil conservation plan on every one of them as well, even though the persons concerned are not there and even though we cannot find them, and even though they have no responsibility there. From the nature of the circumstances it is difficult to carry out these provisions to the letter, because the names and addresses of the squatters and other incidental occupiers are not always known. The legal advisers were of the opinion that as the Act then read a soil conservation plan or a fire-fighting plan could not be valid in law unless it had been served on all owners and occupiers. Consequently an amending Act was passed by Parliament in 1964 in order to place this position beyond any doubt. That amending Act provided, inter alia, that plans only had to be served on owners and occupiers where names and addresses were known. In practice this provision gave rise to endless problems, particularly in Natal. Some farms are occupied by large numbers of squatters, as I have said, and although the names of most of them are known from the records kept by the Bantu Affairs Commissioners, the squatters have no fixed postal addresses, with the result that the plans had to be served personally. The administration of such a provision has proved to be impossible, and therefore this Honourable House is being asked to restore the position that obtained before 1960. My Department is more interested in the owners, and we are of the opinion that full responsibility for carrying out soil conservation plans should be placed on them alone. This matter has been discussed at length by the Soil Conservation Board, and that body is particularly concerned that the position should be rectified as soon as possible.

Furthermore, it is proposed to amend section 19 (4), which provides that an endorsement must be made on the register and on the title deed of the land if a soil conservation plan has been declared applicable to that land. The provision would be useful to bind new owners of land, particularly in respect of the maintenance of soil conservation works on which the State has already paid subsidies. For various practical reasons, however, the Deeds Offices have found it quite impossible to make such endorsements, and it is proposed that the subsection be repealed. After consultations with the Chief Registrar of Deeds it has been decided, instead of this procedure, to prescribe a statement which has to be submitted at every transfer of agricultural land (that is to say, land outside cities and towns and outside Bantu and Coloured trust areas under the new definitions proposed in section 1), to the effect that the soil conservation plan is applicable to that land or that such a plan is not applicable. This will ensure that the new owner will at least have to submit an official document and that he will not be able to declare in future that he was unaware of the soil conservation plan applicable to the land. Now he will no longer be able to say that he did not know.

Lastly it is proposed to insert a definition of “agricultural land” and of “urban area” in view of the amendment in regard to the submission of a certificate to the Registrar of Deeds, which I have already mentioned. In addition I just want to mention that I shall move a small amendment at the Committee Stage.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we support the Second Reading of the Bill. It is actually a little boring this afternoon that one should get up at each one of these agricultural Bills and agree with the Minister. On the other hand it shows how easily the hon. the Minister gets the support of this side of the House when he comes forward with good legislation. We think that the changes which are being made are good. I have always found it strange that a soil conservation plan could also be served on a man who is a “deelsaaier” or on someone who is perhaps a squatter or a labour tenant. In actual fact those people have no responsibility in respect of the land; in the first instance the responsibility is naturally that of the owner or the lessee of the land. As far as the “deelsaaier” is concerned, I think the “deelsaaiers” remaining in South Africa to-day are very few and therefore I also think that it is right that that obligation will rest upon the owner. As the hon. the Deputy Minister said, the change which is being effected is a great improvement, because it is often very difficult to obtain the addresses of the labour tenants, servants or squatters.

As regards the last clause, clause 2, which provides that a transferee shall furnish the deeds registry with an affidavit, I think that the change being effected here is a particularly good one in that a person who buys land must realize that if a soil conservation plan is applicable to that land he cannot evade his responsibility. One quite often finds that people who have done a good deal of soil conservation work are forced to sell their land for some reason or other and that the next owner adopts a quite indifferent attitude to the soil conservation work which has already been done there. We therefore support this Bill.

I think it is common cause that everybody in this House and the public in general accept the principle of soil and water conservation. It is something that is forcibly brought home, particularly in times of drought such as we have been having during the past two or three years, to people who normally would not perhaps give it any great thought. From that point of view one can have very little quarrel as my hon. colleague has said, with this Bill. But I want to approach it from a slightly different angle and in regard to the definition in clause 1, which again excludes land owned by the Bantu Trust. I say “again” because it is excluded to-day. This is again fortified in the Bill which is now before us. Here we had an opportunity to remedy the position. Sir, I have no hesitation in saying that some of the worst eroded areas and the areas where soil conservation is needed more than anywhere else in South Africa, are to be found in the Bantu areas, the scheduled Native areas and the areas owned by the Bantu Trust. There are hundreds of thousands of acres where the damage will be done when we have weather conditions such as we have at the present time. When I read reports in the newspapers and I hear over the wireless that six, seven or eight inches of rain had fallen within 24 hours or within two days, I know what is happening; in those places where the farming community have done their best to carry out the principles of soil conservation and where work has been done, you can still get washaways and you can still get trouble when you get that kind of precipitation but, Sir, how much more so when no soil conservation work has been done and where the bare and the barren hillsides, with no attempt in the case of cultivation to plough on a contour, or even to take the most rudimentary steps, are exposed to these terrific downpours and the topsoil is simply washed away in vast sheets—hundreds of thousands of cubic yards of topsoil—because there has been no attempt at soil conservation. I know that there are certain selected spots here and there where the Department of Bantu Administration is carrying out certain works in connection with soil conservation. I know those areas. But that is not the point. The point is that the law should apply to those areas in the same way as it applies to the White man. Sir, I come from a border farm and when we try to get our members to accept the principles of soil conservation and to spend money in the interests of soil conservation, they just point across my own fence and say, “Look over there; what is your answer to that?” What were formerly clear, permanent pools of water on the farms of our members, are to-day just sand-beds because of the erosion that has taken place higher up and has come down through the Native areas. That is the position, Sir, and I doubt whether it misses out 1 per cent of the rivers into the east coast, right from the Portuguese border down to the Cape/ Natal border. These conditions apply in practically all these rivers. What is the good of putting a law on to the Statute Book where we express these great hopes, hopes for our country? But is it not our country when it is in a scheduled Native area? Is all that topsoil, all that fertility that gets washed down the rivers, not part of South Africa? Has the time been reached when those areas are no longer part of South Africa? Are they foreign states today? Can we afford just to wash our hands of them and to say that our law dealing with soil conservation and water conservation will apply to the White areas but as far as the scheduled Native areas and the areas under the care of the Native Trust are concerned, they are no longer part of South Africa and we cannot help it if those areas are eroded and washed away into the sea? I claim that these areas are still part of South Africa, part of our country, and any erosion in South Africa is part of my country’s erosion, and it is going to have its effect on the remaining portions of South Africa, the White portions. You cannot have eroded areas which are in the scheduled Native areas without having a reaction in the White areas. Sir, I do not know about conditions in the Highveld, and I am not going to attempt to speak about the conditions there; I am speaking now about the coastal conditions which apply from the Portuguese border and continue right down to the southern border of the Transkei and in fact right down to East London. Sir, this law should be applicable to everybody, so far as it is possible. I agree with the Deputy Minister that it is better to lead people than to try to drive them. He probably has a particular case in mind; I want to speak to him about it. As far as the Bantu Affairs Department is concerned we should also try to lead them; as far as the Bantu are concerned, we should try to lead them to an appreciation of the fact that in promoting soil conservation they are helping themselves. They are not only helping the country at large but they are helping themselves. We must embark on a process of persuasion, of education and of demonstrations by practical means of the benefits to be derived from soil and water conservation. I know it is a slow and uphill process but it should be done. But when the law does not apply to those areas and the White man sitting on his farm sees that the law is not applied there while pressure is brought to bear upon him, then he throws up his hands in despair and says to himself: “What do I do under these circumstances? This is no good to me; I want to know that I am going to get something out of it, but I want to know that there is going to be a fair burden imposed upon all of us and that there is going to be one law for all of us.” That is the attitude that is being adopted at the present time and it is a hard attitude to fight against. I say again that this amending Bill presented an opportunity for that old provision to be departed from. I say that the Department of Bantu Administration should have been approached and the wisdom of bringing this law into operation over these areas should have been pointed out to them. I know that it is going to take a long time; it is not going to be done in five or six minutes or within a year, but the law could gradually have been brought into operation over these areas by persuasion and education. We would then have taken a very big step forward indeed. I have no objection to the principle of the Bill and its general provisions but I regret from the bottom of my heart that this exception is being made again in respect of land which is part of our Republic of South Africa and which we ought to be defending just as much as we defend the soil on our own farms.

I have all sympathy with and I appreciate the strong language used by the hon. member for South Coast. He is quite right. The Bantu areas are still part of the Republic of South Africa; they are not foreign territories.

For how long?

The hon. member may ask, “For how long?” I do not want to be dragged into a political debate, but I want to point out the administrative problem to hon. members. One cannot have two forms of control over one area, and because that is so my Department has been in the closest consultation with the Department of Bantu Administration. We also go much further. Recently the Department of Agriculture Technical Services has again had consultations with the Department of Bantu Administration and of Planning, the National Transport Commission and the Provincial Administrations in regard to the demarcation of roads and the erosion accompanying that, because every department has control over a certain aspect. I think I can freely invite any member of this House to go and have a look where Bantu Administration has already come to realize the necessity of soil conservation measures. I can name the hon. member a few places, but I shall name only one as an example, Nongoma. Not only has veld control been applied there to train the Bantu to leave the veld to lie unused for a while, but contours have also been constructed. However, we have one difficulty to contend with, and there the hon. member for South Coast is right. It is an educational task because one cannot threaten these people. They have to be guided and educated over a long period of time. It is the traditional attitude of the Bantu that his wealth lies in quantity—large numbers of children and large numbers of livestock—and not in quality. Now that attitude first has to be changed and he has to be told, “Look, you should not farm with large numbers of stock on this piece of land because you will trample it and ruin it.” He must be conditioned so as to know that he should farm with better quality stock there in order to achieve this conservation. I want to give the House the assurance, however, that we cannot bring the Bantu areas into the Act in this way, because the Bantu areas are often communal property. It belongs to the tribe with the chief as its head. To whom is it going to be made applicable? Is it going to be forced onto the whole tribe? That is why my Department is acting in the closest collaboration with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, so much so that amongst the one-year students at Potchef-stroom University this year we have four persons from the Department of Bantu Administration who, after following a one-year course there, are going to give guidance in soil conservation exclusively to the Bantu. I want to give the House the assurance that we shall take the necessary steps in this regard, without including the necessary provision in the Act. by guiding them and pointing out to them that they must educate and direct their own people in this regard.

I hope my speech will help you.

I am grateful for the hon. member’s speech. I just want to say too, that an amendment will also have to be included in clause 1 which will make it possible for a person who has bought land under the control of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to obtain a loan and to qualify for a subsidy, which at the moment he cannot do because he has not yet obtained transfer.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

A superficial glance at this Bill gives one the impression that we are now washing our hands altogether of the responsibility to protect birds in South Africa, and that the field is now thrown wide open to people who want to exterminate and shoot. First of all I want to give the House the assurance that that is not the case. This Bill merely provides that in terms of the two Acts which are now to be repealed, no wild birds, i.e. birds found temporarily or permanently in the country, may be caught, exchanged, sold or exported without a permit issued by my Department. Until now the policy followed was to issue no permit for catching wild birds to private persons, and exporting wild birds was allowed only for scientific and educational purposes. Arising from the power conferred on the provinces by Act No. 50 of 1935 and the ordinances passed by the respective provinces from time to time, nature conservation developed into an important function of the provincial services. I want to emphasize that nature conservation is a matter which the provincial administrations are eager to handle.

This ambiguous legal provision naturally gave rise to considerable anomalies, and the continued existence of the two Acts under discussion may invalidate some provisions in the provincial ordinances, as the Cape Provincial Administration pointed out in representations to my Department. It so happens that the Cape Provincial Administration is at the moment facing the problem that people have contravened their ordinances but that they cannot institute prosecutions because our Act created an anomaly. Because my Department had no inspectors at its disposal it could not enforce the Acts properly, and the establishment of such a service would amount to duplication because the provinces do have inspectors for nature conservation, and the protection of wild birds would therefore be more appropriate to the provinces. I have already mentioned that they are eager to do so, and they also do it very well.

I may just add that the prohibition on the export of ostriches will continue to be controlled by my Department because ostrich farming is deemed to be of economic importance, and my Department would like to retain its say over those large birds.

You want to keep their heads in the sand.

No, Mr. Speaker. I am not dealing with those matters.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the repeal of the two Acts is welcomed by all the provincial administrations—they actually asked for it—and I trust the hon. House will give it its favourable consideration.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House not only support this Bill but we welcome it because it is once again one of those measures which are going to remove uncertainty and give one legislative body, in this case the Provincial Councils, power to legislate. Parliament itself has now stepped down and prevented that difficulty which has arisen in the past where two legislative bodies with equal powers in a particular field may clash and where Parliament will naturally have the last word, the Parliamentary Act having precedence over any provincial ordinance. May I in passing thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for saying how well the provinces are administering the wild life in their care. Included in that is our own avifauna which is the subject of this Bill. It is a rare tribute that we give to the provincial administrations powers which vest in hon. gentlemen in authority on that side of the House. This is a very welcome tribute indeed. I can assure the hon. Deputy Minister that this will be very much appreciated.

It is an honest one.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister emphasizes that it is honest. We took that for granted from an hon. member in this House. Although a little note of levity has crept in, this question is really a very serious one. I think that I can say for all four provinces which are doing the job very well, that we are very keenly interested indeed in the preservation of bird life. It is something which together with the preservation of our natural fauna and flora, ranks very high indeed. We have certain kinds of birds that are a pest—I exclude them for a moment—because they have increased in numbers under certain conditions to the extent that they simply have to be destroyed. That is that and there can be no argument about it. As to the generality of our indigenous birds however they are a permanent part and a very important part of the whole of the agricultural set-up in South Africa. Destroy the bird life and you have changed the ecology of the whole agricultural community of South Africa. One of the basic features and factors will have gone. It has been found in countries overseas where the protection of the indigenous avifauna has not been so keenly upheld as it has been in South Africa that the most serious and deleterious effects for agriculture have followed when that bird life has been destroyed. We are therefore very anxious indeed to have the powers to preserve our bird life through the powers of the provincial councils to legislate, the Administrator to make regulations and so on. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that the trust that he has placed in the provinces to safely carry out what has been entrusted to them will not be abused but that South Africa can rely upon the fact that every effort will be made by every means, legislative and administrative, to see that our avifauna is properly protected and that the care is lavished upon it to which it is entitled as a part of the heritage we have and which we are enjoying here in our country and want to pass on to those who come after us.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill to amend certain provisions of the Aliens Act of 1937 with a view to facilitating the administration and to rectify a deficiency which was probably not foreseen when the Act was drafted in 1937, but has now been brought to light. In clause 1 of the Bill it is sought to amend the definitions of the Act so as to bring them into line with amendments made to the South African Citizenship Act of 1949 and the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act of 1913, which were promulgated after the promulgation of the Act now under review. It is also sought to provide a definition for the expression “European inhabitant of the Union” as used in section 4 (3) (b) of the Act. In terms of section 4 of the existing Act the authority to grant a permit for permanent residence is vested in the Immigration Selection Board, established under section 3, and in terms of sub-section (4) of section 4 the Chairman of the Board is required to issue the permit which has been authorized. As the issue of a permit is purely an administrative matter, it is considered that the administrative procedure should be simplified by enabling the Secretary for Immigration, or any official designated by him, to issue the permit. I propose, therefore, in clause 2 (a) of the Bill, to amend the Act accordingly. In clauses 2 (a) and (b) of the Bill it is also proposed to add a proviso that the recipient of a permit for permanent residence must enter the Republic within a period of 6 months from the date of issue of the permit or within a period for which it may be extended, failing which the permit will lapse. This is essential as the merits of each applicant are judged on the circumstances obtaining at the time when his application is considered by the Immigration Selection Board. If a period of validity is not stipulated and the immigrant should fail to take up permanent residence within a reasonable time, the circumstances of his case might have changed to such an extent by the time the permit is made use of, the Board might not be prepared to grant a permit if the application were to be considered then. He could, for instance have committed a serious crime in the meantime or he could have become mentally or physically incapable of providing for himself and his dependants. In fact, we have had a test case which arose out of this difficulty. The Government law advisers are of the opinion that a permit issued in 1948, which has not been made use of, is still valid in spite of the fact that the person concerned is, in the opinion of the Immigration Selection Board, an undesirable type in the circumstances presently surrounding his case.

Mr. Speaker, it is also necessary to make provision, as I propose to do in clause 2 (a) of the Bill, for an extension of the period of validity of a permit in deserving cases. An alien may have to dispose of his fixed property and other assets and make certain other arrangements after he has been granted permanent residence or he may have other sound reasons for not being able to take up permanent residence in the Republic within six months. In such cases we want to make provision that the Secretary for Immigration should be in a position to extend the validity of a permit and also to lay down conditions for such extension, such as for instance the submission of fresh proof of health.

Finally, Sir, there is an obvious error in section 4 (5) where the word “or” was used instead of the word “and”. The opportunity is now being taken to remedy this textual error.

Mr. Speaker, we regard it as quite reasonable that there should be a limitation on the period of validity of permits in respect of persons who enter the country. The rest of the Bill contains only administrative amendments, with the result that we have no objection to the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This measure is a simple one which will probably call forth little discussion. It was passed in the Other Place during the previous session already and it is now being resumed in terms of Standing Order No. 71. The Bill proposes to amend Section 7 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, which governs the preservation of court records, and Section 9 of the Act, which governs the appointment of judicial officers. As is generally known, the records of a magistrate’s court are preserved at the seat of the court under section 7 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944, for periods which vary from two to 15 years according to the nature of the records. Experience has shown, however, that the need of access to court records which have been dealt with is very slight after a few years have elapsed. Accordingly the law has been amended from time to time in the past in order to reduce the original preservation period of 15 years in respect of certain court records. Nevertheless, several thousands of court records are still taking up considerable storage space every year to no purpose seeing that they are seldom, if ever, consulted. The Department of Justice is finding it increasingly difficult to comply with existing provisions in connection with the preservation of court records without incurring considerable expenditure in respect of additional storage space. The problems being experienced in this regard can, however, be eliminated by having the periods for which records have to be kept at the seat of the court laid down administratively by the Secretary for Justice as circumstances require instead of prescribing them by law. Valuable records will, as in the past, continue to be stored at archives after suitable periods have elapsed, from where they can at any time be re-obtained by the office of origin if required. The proposed amendment will prevent the incurring of unnecessary expenditure at a large number of places in order to obtain storage space, as well as the repeated amendment of the Act in order to adapt it to circumstances.

As far as the propsed amendment of section 9 is concerned, it may be mentioned that in terms of section 9 of the Act the Minister may delegate his power of appointing judicial officers to officers of the Department of Justice holding the ranks mentioned in the section. Because the designations of the ranks concerned have been changed time and again in the past, the section has had to be amended repeatedly. Such an amendment has once again become necessary as a result of the recent renaming of the ranks concerned. The repeated amending of the section simply because the ranks have been renamed can, however, be avoided if the Minister is authorized to delegate his powers in this regard to officers of the Department of Justice without mentioning the ranks of these officers in the Act. Of course, such powers will, as in the past, only be delegated to senior officers.

There is also a provision in the Bill which affects the position of Bantu Affairs Commissioners. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and officers of his Department may make judicial appointments in respect of districts or sub-districts under his administrative control. Consequently it is necessary to adapt the existing provisions in this regard to the amendment now being proposed. I move.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister said, there is not much in this Bill, as it merely deals with the keeping of records and the appointment of officials. But it is a fact that before the law did lay down for what period these records had to be kept. Now the period will be decided by the Secretary for Justice. I want to point out that the public did know where they stood, and their representatives here did have some say in fixing the period for which records would be kept. I quite appreciate the justification given by the hon. the Minister, namely that these periods are changed from time to time by different Acts of Parliament. I should like to know whether the Minister can tell us in the Committee Stage what principle will be adopted by the Secretary in deciding for how long different types of records will be kept. As the Minister knows, if a judgment becomes superannuated and someone wishes to act thereon, application has to be made to the Court for the record. But if the record has been destroyed, he will not be able to obtain the copy. I suggest therefore, that the Secretary for Justice keeps these records for some considerable time before he does destroy them. In criminal matters it will probably not matter very much, but in civil matters it may be of importance to have a copy of a record.

I should like to hear from the Minister, who will be responsible for getting the record from the archives? If a copy is required, how does the party concerned obtain a copy from the archives? I know of an instance where an attorney applied to a magistrate for a copy of a court judgment in a case decided some time ago, and he was told to obtain it from the archives. Surely it should be the responsibility of the Department of Justice to obtain the required copy from the archives, because, Sir, I do not see how the archives can merely hand out records to every Dick, Tom, and Harry who may want a copy. Who will make the copy? I do not think the archivist will make the copy. I shall be glad if the Minister will deal with this matter perhaps in the Committee Stage or during the Third Reading, if he does not know the answer at present.

With regard to the appointing of officials, I think the wording of the Bill before us is certainly much better than it was previously. We on this side support this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

At present persons whose rate of earnings exceed R2,860 a year are excluded from the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act, and as soon as a worker earns more than that amount he is no longer a contributor to the Fund and cannot accumulate further credits for the purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.

A maximum wage limit is laid down in the Act because only workers whose wages fall under that limit are regarded as persons in respect of whom provision should be made for assistance by means of the Unemployment Fund. In view of wage increases, however, it is necessary to revise the maximum wage limit from time to time.

During recent times there have in fact been representations from various trade union federations in which an increase in the maximum wage limit was urged in order that persons who had previously come within the ambit of the Act, but who had ceased being contributors as a result of wage increases, could continue being so.

The representations which were received were referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board for inquiry and recommendation. For the information of hon. members I may just mention that that Board is a statutory body under the Act on which both employers and employees are represented, and one of its functions is to inquire into and to make recommendations to the Minister regarding any matter that relates to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Initially the Board endeavoured, when considering the representations, to collect information on the actual increases in salaries that had taken place, but such statistics are not readily available.

At its meeting held on 21st September, 1966. the Board decided unanimously to recommend that the maximum wage limit be increased to R3,120 a year, i.e. an increase of 9 per cent on the previous figure of R2,860 a year, which had come into effect in July, 1965. The Board is of the opinion that the increased wage limit will bring most of the persons who had been excluded as a result of wage increases back within the ambit of the Act. The Bill provides accordingly and it is in the interests of the workers that it be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible.

Why was an amount of R3,120 resolved on?

That was the recommendation of the Board in their well-considered judgment, and we accepted that. It is estimated that the proposed amendment will bring 30,000 workers in Group 12, i.e. the highest wage group,, within the ambit of the Act and that it will cost the State approximately R80,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker, it is now approximately two years ago that this particular provision in the Act was amended by increasing the maximum to R2,860 a year. At that time we on this side of the House, and I understand also certain trade union representatives on the Unemployment Insurance Board, pleaded that the amount should be R3,120, but our request was rejected. We wanted the determination of that amount to be based on the consideration that this Act would then be placed on the same basis as the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It was replied, however, that the two Acts had nothing to do with each other. I therefore find it interesting, Sir, that the amount which is now proposed is the same as that laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. From that point of view this measure is an improvement because it creates some uniformity, although there are of course other differences in the calculations made in terms of these two Acts.

This side of the House supports this measure, but what gives rise to some concern is, in our view, the fact that Group 12, of all the various groups into which beneficiaries under this Act are divided, now becomes an enormous group. If one considers the 12 groups provided for in the Act one finds that every time an employee’s salary increases by R156 a year, he moves to a higher group. That applies for Group 1 up to Group 11. An increase of R156 in a man’s income means that he moves to a higher group, and then his compensation under unemployment insurance increases automatically. That has the interesting effect that the rate of compensation need not necessarily be adjusted in order to meet inflation, because a worker’s wages are increased as inflation becomes more severe, and compensation under the Act is also increased automatically if he falls in a higher category: But in category 12, which should in general include responsible people who will not have recourse to the provisions of this Bill too frequently, one finds that there is an infinitely larger margin than only R156 a year. It starts off with people who earn R 1,974 a year plus a cent. They receive compensation of R14 a week. But in that group there are now people earning R3,120 a year, and they will receive the same compensation. To me it is inconceivable that one can think that persons whose standards of living differ so widely can meet the problem of unemployment through the same compensation of R14. I should therefore very much like to hear from the Minister whether he and his Department will not consider introducing a further subdivision here as well, and at least giving people in the higher category better compensation to enable them to adapt themselves to some extent, without tremendous disruption, to the problem of unemployment if they come face to face with it. At the moment it is becoming quite unrealistic. The reason for the increase in the maximum was that as a result of inflation and the consequential wage increases people stop belonging to the Fund and that the Fund consequently loses revenue, which proves that a problem is arising in this respect. R14 compensation today cannot be compared to R14 in 1957. I therefore want to urge the Minister very strongly, in the interests of people affected by this, to give attention to this matter. We cannot disregard differences of R156, which appears to be the basis on which this classification was made, when dealing with people who earn more than R1,794 a year.

With that one observation—other members will raise other points—I want to say that we support this Bill as a practical measure to meet reality in South Africa, which is that the rand is depreciating by the day under this Government, and that we have to adjust our laws accordingly.

I am pleased that the Minister has approached the House once again to bring a larger group of workers under the cover of unemployment insurance. If one bears in mind that at the end of 1965 there were 1,175,000 contributors to the Fund, one realizes what a large number of workers are at present protected against unemployment in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister said, this Bill will bring in an additional 30,000 workers, but if we consider the normal increase in two years it is to be anticipated that by the end of this year that number of workers will increase to 1,300,000. We are, therefore, grateful that not only the workers who previously contributed to the Fund and who are now excluded as a result of wage increases, but also a larger number of workers can be brought in under the cover of the Act. This is the third time this Government has increased the maximum. In other words, it is an attempt to ensure that the cover afforded by the Act keeps abreast of the increase in wages. I also want to say that it is actually a pity that the Minister did not see his way clear to give this 12th group higher benefits, but I think it is quite understandable and that one has to choose in this matter. Hon. members will recall that in 1959 the Fund reached the highest mark in its history, i.e. R134 million, and that it then started sinking and decreased so rapidly that the Auditor-General and the Committee on Public Accounts had to bring it to the attention of this House that something had to be done to counter that unfavourable trend in the Fund.

Order! The hon. member is now going somewhat too far.

The hon. member mentioned increased benefits, and I want to point out that we have to choose in the matter. The fact of the matter is that in 1961, when Group 12 was established, the percentage ratio of a contributor’s benefits to the median wage in Group 12 represented 33,8 per cent of his wages, and with the increase in 1965 that percentage decreased to 31.4 per cent. If one now has regard to the median wage in the new maximum of R3,120 which is being laid down, then the percentage ratio of the weekly benefit to his wages decreases further to 29.6 per cent. It appears to me that this is a matter one will have to face up to, but on the other hand I want to point out that the Fund has not yet succeeded again in reaching the mark of R134 million which it reached in 1959. It now totals approximately 126 million. As regards the average cover, the average cover per contributor was R190 in 1959. At present the average cover is only R109. I, therefore, maintain that if one gave increased benefits under the present dispensation, considering the present state of the Fund, one would merely exhaust the Fund. If one wanted to maintain the Fund at the same level with regard to the cover provided…

Order! The hon. member is now going too far.

I just wanted to make the point that we cannot pay increased benefits at this stage.

The Minister, in introducing this Bill, gave some indication of what the effect would be in regard to the groups of contributors who now find that their wages are beyond the ceiling as set out in the principal Act. I believe that the House deserves to have a little more information from the Minister in this regard. We realize that in 1962 important amendments were made to the Act which resulted in an accumulation in the fund. In terms of this Bill, further contributors in Group 12 will be brought into the ambit of the Act, and some of them were no longer contributors due to the fact that the ceiling was set at R2,860 per annum. In terms of this Bill it has been increased to R3,120. Therefore it would appear that one of the effects will be a greater amount accruing to the fund by way of contributions. Here I think the Minister should give us a little more information as to the effect this legislation will have on the fund. In 1962 we on this side bitterly opposed the amendments made. We find that as the result of those amendments the fund has increased. In 1963 the accumulated funds were R120 million and at the end of 1966 it had increased to R127 million. In other words, the funds have increased by R7 million during the past three years. Now we are creating a situation where even more funds will accumulate. We would like to have some indication as to what the anticipated additional amounts which will accumulate in the fund will be as the result of the raising of the ceiling proposed in this Bill. We understand from the Minister’s introductory remarks that it is merely to keep pace with the increase in wages and it is not really to increase the number of contributors but rather to keep those persons who were contributors in the past. So it would appear that there will not be an increase in the number of contributors. The hon. member for Pretoria West indicated how large the number of contributors was. Therefore it will be interesting to learn from the Minister whether as the result of this Bill he anticipates an increase in the number of contributors. We realize that one of the side-effects of inflation is an increase in wages and it has meant that it has become necessary for the ceiling to be raised. At the same time one would anticipate that the Minister will give due consideration to the benefits that are paid. These people will now, in terms of this Bill, come under a group defined in the Schedule of the principal Act. In terms of that they will also be enabled to claim benefits on the scale of the benefits payable under this Act. We now find that this Group 12 will have a very large disparity in figures. The Schedule, as it stands, has steadily been increased over the years. In 1965 it was increased from R2,500 to R2,860 per annum, and now in terms of this Bill it will be increased to R3.120. However, we know that the Unemployment Insurance Board are always anxious to ensure that the ceiling figure is divisible by 52 so that it can be worked out on the weekly basis. The benefits of these persons in Group 12 will also be on a weekly basis. I specifically mention this question of Group 12 because they pay the highest contributions and the highest number of contributors are in that group. According to the latest available report. I think approximately 30 per cent of all contributors are in Group 12. I might mention that difficulty is often experienced by members of this House in keeping track of the position in regard to this fund due to the fact that only one report is tabled in this House and a member has to read that report in the office of the Clerk of the Papers. However, the position is that Group 12 will now consist of persons earning R 1,749, which on a weekly basis is R34.50; in the same Group 12 will come this new ceiling figure of persons earning R3,120 per annum or R60 per week. They are all included in this group, the worker earning R34.50 per week up to the worker earning R60 per week. In terms of what these people will be entitled to in benefits, the maximum benefit in that group will be R14 a week. So the man who is earning R 34.50 is entitled to claim benefits of R14 a week when he becomes unemployed and at the same time the man earning R60 a week will also only be entitled to R14 a week. Therefore it is hoped that the hon. the Minister in raising the ceiling for Group 12 in terms of this amendment, will also consider the position of those people who, in terms of the principal Act, will be entitled to a benefit of R14 per week.

There is one final point on which I think the House should have further information from the hon. the Minister, and that is whether he is satisfied that the ceiling he proposes in this Bill is high enough to meet the situation that has arisen in recent years. In 1965 the ceiling was raised to R2,860 per annum from R2,500. The proposal now is to raise the ceiling by an additional R260 per annum to R3,120. I believe that it would have been more realistic, if the hon. the Minister wanted a certain group of contributors, whose wages have increased in recent times, still to remain covered, to have raised the ceiling to a higher figure. I suggest that he might even have considered the figure of R3,380 as the ceiling in terms of this legislation. That figure also happens to be divisible by 52, so that the group earning R65 per week would be brought within the ambit of this particular legislation. Sir, I feel that this Bill is an important segment of social security in South Africa. We on this side of the House are always prepared to support measures which we believe benefit the workers and that is why in principle we support the second reading.

Several questions have yet to be answered by the Minister, and the one that strikes me as being the most important is how the Minister came to the decision that the figure of R3,120 should be the ceiling. Who decided that and what influenced the Minister to accept that decision?

It took two years of argument on our part to persuade him.

Sir, this is a very important matter, because the whole basis of unemployment insurance depends on this ceiling. The hon. the Minister must concede that the ceiling was raised for one reason only and that is that the value of money has fallen. It is conceded that people are earning more at the moment and basically it is a good idea to call upon them to make larger contributions to the fund. But surely, the hon. the Minister must also realize that these very people who are earning more because of the inflationary tendency will require more when it comes to receiving benefits. Why should it only be a one-way traffic? Is the Minister afraid that his fund will be depleted? I repeat what I said last year, and that is that the danger of unemployment in South Africa is minimal. Surely the Minister is not afraid that his fund will be depleted by a sudden rush on his fund from unemployed people. The obvious thing for all thinking people is to say: “If people are required to pay more into the fund, let those who have to draw benefits from the fund receive a like return.” The benefits payable to all groups, whether they be in the first group or the twelfth group, should be increased. If we recognize that there are inflationary tendencies, then the Minister must also take those inflationary tendencies into account when he reviews the position as far as the payment of benefits is concerned. Sir, I would urge the hon. the Minister to consider the position of those people who have to leave their employment because of temporary illness. I think the Minister has said that there will be a larger group of people to whom benefits will have to be paid. The Minister knows as well as I do how difficult it is today for the working man to meet his accounts. Surely he should immediately consider our suggestion that he should increase the benefits payable to people who become unemployed or sick.

I appreciate the support this measure has received from both sides of the House. Of course such a measure always offers room for the plea that a higher limit should be set and that higher benefits should be paid. That is a natural reaction which is always elicited by such a measure.

In this matter we have a great deal to do with the Unemployment Insurance Board. The Government allows itself to be guided to a large extent by the considerations and recommendations of that board, because the board is constituted from an equal number of representatives of employers and employees. It is therefore felt that the opinion expressed by the board is a most representative opinion. We therefore attach a great deal of value to it.

The hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for the subdivision of Group 12. That is a matter which is certainly enjoying attention. If it is analysed it appears to be somewhat unbalanced. The board has in fact given thorough consideration to that. They felt, however, that at this juncture they did not see their way clear to add an additional group, say Group 13.

Are they superstitious?

No, they are people with a very level-headed attitude towards life; they are not Father Christmases who can simply dole out money left, right and centre. They have to do with a fund which they have to keep actuarially sound, and they want to fulfil that responsibility in such a way that they will not be placed in an unfavourable light before the workers or the employers or the Government.

The hon. member for Pretoria West also expressed his regret that the benefits in respect of Group 12 were not higher. One would like them to be higher, but surely the benefits must have regard to the strength of the fund, and in that respect the board itself has not come forward with other proposals.

Why was it not approved by the board; what was their objection?

The board did not deem it advisable at this stage. Surely they take all the aspects into consideration. I was asked by the hon. member for Umbilo what effect this amendment would have on the fund. I was advised that it would bring the fund approximately R390,000 a year in additional revenue.

It was also asked what the further position was as regards payments. In this regard I may give the following particulars: In 1965 an amount of R3 million was received in contributions in Group 12, and in that year the payments were R2 million. To that must be added, of course, the administration costs connected with the fund, which must also be taken into consideration. The hon. member for Pretoria West pointed out that the fund has not yet succeeded again in reaching the mark it reached in previous years. I presume the board has as much due regard for that fact as we have, to ensure that the fund remains sound. In that regard I want to assure hon. members that this board is a body which has constantly fulfilled its task with the utmost responsibility towards the workers. If it were to happen that the board felt it could establish a thirteenth group, as the hon. member for Yeoville would have it, or that the benefits could be increased, hon. members need have no doubts that the board would make such a recommendation, and the Government would then consider it most favourably.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

This Bill seeks to make provision for more effective control over motor carrier transportation and to facilitate the application of the principal Act. Hon. members have had the privilege of an explanatory memorandum and, for that reason, it is unnecessary for me to go into the proposed amendments in detail.

Clause 1 refers to the definition of “authorized officer” and the object of the amendment is to empower members of the Railway Police Force to act as “authorized officers” at places beyond the precincts of the railways and harbours. The extension of the powers of members of the Railway Police Force for purposes of applying the principal Act is deemed essential in order to restrain unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Only 49 inspectors are at present employed in the transportation inspectorate of the Department of Transport, and, in addition to road transportation inspections, they are also responsible for inspecting vehicles in terms of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act and for checking the records of agencies dealing in such insurance throughout the Republic. In addition the assistance rendered by the South African Police and the various provincial and local traffic authorities in the application of the principal Act is limited because of a shortage of staff and their numerous other duties. Unauthorized motor carrier transportation can only be controlled effectively if regular organized investigations are carried out by authorized officers. By extending the powers of members of the Railway Police Force in this regard, valuable assistance will be rendered in the combating of unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The proposed amendment in clause 2 seeks to make the application of the principal Act more effective. In practice the existing section 7 (1) (h) at present has the effect that motor cars, for instance, which are used as taxis have to display the name, address and the nature of the business as well as the class of passengers carried. The same applies in the case of smaller vehicles which are used for hawking purposes. Holders of certificates have complained, however, and have pointed out that it is unpractical and unreasonable to expect that all the above-mentioned particulars have to be displayed on a motor car for instance. For that reason the proposed clause 2 extends the discretion of the National Transport Commission and a local board by empowering them to decide in future that either the name and address or the nature of the business or the class of persons carried will be sufficient. Therefore this amendment is purely and simply a measure to accommodate public road transportation in practice.

As regards the proposed amendment contained in clause 3, experience has shown that road hauliers are often encouraged by unscrupulous consignors and owners of goods or by persons acting on their behalf to undertake unauthorized motor carrier transportation to the advantage of such consignors, owners or persons and that it is not possible to bring charges against such persons under the principal Act. The proposed amendment will counter this malpractice in that it will be presumed in future that the consignor and owner of such goods and any person who acted on behalf of such an owner or consignor were aware that such goods were conveyed illegally, unless it is proved to the contrary that said persons did not know that such goods were being conveyed illegally or could not prevent such goods from being so conveyed. Consequently it will henceforth be possible to charge these persons as accessories to such an offence.

Clause 4 makes provision for the amendment of section 13 of the principal Act in order to regulate the exceptions to the requirements contained in sub-section (1) of the relative section, namely that particulars of applications for motor transportation certificates have to be published in the Government Gazette in the manner prescribed by regulation before such applications are granted or refused. In view of the provisions of section 7 (4) of the principal Act it is obvious that legislature intended the National Transport Commission and local road transportation boards to have the power, in urgent cases for example, to issue certificates for motor carrier transportation of a temporary nature. If prior publication of particulars of such applications constitutes a pre-requisite for the issue of the certificates, the existing machinery for the speedy consideration and dispatch of such applications will automatically be made ineffective. While the exceptions in question do not specifically include the publication of particulars of applications for temporary motor carrier certificates, the motor carrier regulations provide that prior publication is not essential in respect of applications of this nature. This procedure has always been followed since the coming into operation of the principal Act but in a recent case in the Supreme Court of South Africa (Orange Free State Provincial Division) the legality of the regulation in question was challenged on the grounds that it was ultra vires the enabling provision contained in section 13(1) of the principal Act. On this point the court expressed the opinion that the arguments to this effect seemed correct. It appears evident that the case will be taken to a higher court for revision and that a prima facie case has been made out for declaring the provisions of the relative regulation ultra vires the principal Act. Such a possible declaration will have serious repercussions for the effective application of the principal Act and as a result, commerce and industry will be prejudiced in that it will be deprived of the privilege of having applications for temporary certificates considered without the formality of prior publication which, if required, will involve delay.

Clause 5 makes provision of the amendment of section 18 of the principal Act which prescribes penalties for any contravention of this Act. Considering the increasing number of cases of unauthorized motor carrier transportation and the detrimental effects thereof for bona fide road hauliers, it is clear that the existing maximum penalty of R200 or imprisonment for six months together with provision for the forfeiture of the vehicle used for such transportation is an ineffective deterrent. An increased maximum penalty and provision for the forfeiture to the State of the goods conveyed by unauthorized motor carrier transportation are therefore deemed essential.

I can assure hon. members that present circumstances and the extent of unauthorized motor carrier transportation justify these proposed measures.

Recently the Department had to deal with cases where hauliers and other owners of vehicles were repeatedly and intentionally involved in unauthorized motor carrier transportation in spite of convictions and fines. Things developed to the stage where so-called transportation agencies were established for the purpose of effecting the conveyance of goods by road over long distances without the necessary authority. Certain sales representatives expressed the view that they found it difficult to obtain orders for goods offered by them if the businesses supplying the goods were not prepared to guarantee delivery by road as was offered by competitive firms which in most cases apparently effected delivery by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. With particular reference to the provision for the forfeiture of goods conveyed by unauthorized motor carrier transportation, I have to mention that it has been brought to the notice of the department that in many cases of unauthorized motor carrier transportation involving the conveyance of heavy loads over long distances, it was not so much the haulier but in fact the consignor who was to blame for the illegal activities. In such cases the haulier was prevailed upon to undertake illegal transportation or to run the risk of losing an existing legal contract with consignor.

I regret to say that certain large industrial and commercial undertakings apparently do not hesitate to offer their goods for conveyance by irresponsible hauliers by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Such undertakings usually have their own vehicles but are apparently not prepared to run the risk of using such vehicles for unauthorized motor carrier transportation. Some hauliers and owners of vehicles even go as far as handing a certain amount of money to the drivers of vehicles used for unauthorized motor carrier transportation which they can use for paying possible fines if the vehicles are stopped en route and prosecutions are instituted. If the vehicle is not stopped en route and the load is delivered at its destination such money is handed to the driver as a bonus. In addition certain consignors have even stated openly that they are not in the least concerned about whether consignments are conveyed illegally or not.

It must be emphasized, however, that the proposed provision for the forfeiture to the State of goods conveyed by means of unauthorized motor carrier transportation will in no way affect the law-abiding dealer who makes use of existing transportation facilities.

In order to combat this malpractice which is followed by certain operators who persist in making use of unauthorized motor carrier transportation in spite of various previous convictions, it is essential to provide for the imposition of the maximum penalty in the case of a third or subsequent conviction on a charge of this nature.

In order to protect the interests of any person in a vehicle or goods forfeited to the State it is also essential to make provision, as is proposed, for the provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of section 360 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, to be applicable in the case of such forfeiture.

The imposition of the proposed increased maximum penalty falls outside the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts as laid down in the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944. This will inevitably give rise to delay in bringing prosecutions under the principal Act to finality and consequently it is necessary to make provision for the extension of the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in order to allow them to impose the proposed penalties. Therefore the proposed amendment is of a consequential nature.

The proposed amendment in clause 6 is essential for the proper application of the principal Act and the amendments proposed in clause 5. In terms of the existing paragraph (h) of section 19 (1) of the principal Act, the Minister may make regulations which prescribe the duties and powers of authorized officers appointed by the National Transport Commission only. The relative amendment which is now being effected will enable the Minister to make regulations prescribing the duties and powers of all authorized officers as defined in the principal Act.

In the case of an offence involving the perpetration of unauthorized motor carrier transportation and which may, in terms of the present provision and as is proposed, lead to the forfeiture to the State of the vehicle and the goods thereon, it is essential to empower certain authorized officers, i.e. officers appointed by the Commission and any police officer, to seize a motor vehicle suspected on reasonable grounds of having been used in connection with such unauthorized motor carrier transportation, and the goods conveyed thereon. It is also essential to make provision for an enabling clause for prescribing the manner in which motor vehicles or goods so seized shall be dealt with pending the institution of criminal proceedings.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House recognizes the problem which has given rise to this legislation before us. Not only in the fields covered by the Minister, but in another field the position has become a very serious one. I am referring to the matter of the pirate taxis. I notice the hon. the Minister has not even touched on that aspect of the illegal trade which has developed, particularly in Durban and from the Transkei into Natal, into a lucrative and very large-scale trade. That illegal pirate taxi business is one which needs urgent attention. Therefore we will support this Bill at the Second Reading, and we support the principle of taking action to deal with the evils of illegal transportation. We, however, have certain misgivings in regard to the details of the Bill which we will deal with now and also at the Committee Stage when we get to it. One of the misgivings is one which goes further than detail and that is to try to put one’s finger on the reasons for so much illegal transportation. I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not the direct result of the policy followed by his Department and by the National Transportation Board—a restrictive policy which reduces to such an extent the number of legitimate carriers that it forces people or tempts people into becoming illegal carriers, both as pirate taxis and for the transportation of goods. I ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not believe that it is the actual policy which his Department lays down, of refusing a large percentage of applications for motor carrier certificates, which is forcing this resort to illegal means. I happen to have had the opportunity of being present when evidence was led before the Marais Commission on the co-ordination of transport, and a great deal of the evidence led in Durban concerns this particular problem. There was evidence led from the Taxi Owners Association, the local carriers, the shippers and handlers of cargo and other organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. Without exception this problem of the restrictive approach of the Department towards motor transportation was one which caused great concern. Particular requests were made to deal with the illegal aspect of competition by those who ignored the law and made money whilst the honest carrier, who obeyed the law, suffered. But if the honest carrier is not to have the opportunity to carry goods, then ultimately he too will wonder whether he should not follow the example of the illegal one, unless this measure is going to be sufficiently stringent to stop the practice. I would like to ask the Minister at this stage whether he has received the report of the Marais Commission, whether it has completed its work and whether this legislation is based upon the recommendations or the findings of that Commission in regard to this particular problem.

Turning to the Bill itself we support the extension of the powers of the Railway Police, to act off railway premises, and we realize that it will be necessary if the Railway Police are to be effectively used in combating road piracy. We support the extension of the discretion in regard to notices to be displayed and we accept the amendment in clause 3 (a) in regard to persons who convey goods or other persons illegally being presumed to have carried on motor carrier transportation, unless the contrary is proved. However, we have very serious doubts about paragraph (b) of the clause which gives the right, firstly, to prosecute an owner of goods carried illegally and to confiscate those goods with the onus upon the owner to prove that he did not know that they were being illegally transported.

The Minister did not deal with that point.

The Minister dealt with that in passing. He merely stated the fact that this Bill placed the responsibility of proof on the owner of the goods. We cannot see how an owner can adduce the proof which is necessary except by saying: “X came to me. I thought he was a licensed carrier. He quoted for the job and I gave him the job.” What proof is an owner expected to obtain from a carrier? Does the Minister now mean that every consignor of goods is going to have to demand to see the certificate of the carrier before he allows that carrier to carry his goods? Because, if that is the proof required, it is the only way in which it can be done. It is quite impracticable for every consignor of goods to demand to see the carrier’s licence or certificate in respect of every single consignment of goods and every different carrier he uses. We feel that the principle is wrong of assuming a person is guilty unless he proves himself innocent. It is contrary to our whole system of justice, our whole approach to justice in South Africa. We have always opposed this principle. We have always believed and still believe that it is utterly wrong to say that any man is presumed guilty unless he proves his own innocence. In this particular case, as it is incorporated into this Bill, we see absolutely no justification. There are cases where justification can be accepted, as in the case of paragraph (a). But we cannot see any justification in regard to goods. Here we find that a person, who in all innocence conveys some valuable cargo from point A to point B, can lose that cargo through no fault of his own. We believe that if there is to be confiscation of goods and if there is going to be punishment of a person using an illegal carrier, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to show that the person, in fact, had reason to be aware of the fact that he was acting illegally. We believe that to reverse the onus is unjustifiable and against the best interests of justice, and we shall oppose this particular sub-section at the Committee Stage.

We have no objection against the next clauses, except in so far as the consequential confiscation of goods of an owner is concerned and placing the onus of proof on the owner before he can claim his own goods. We do have doubt about clause 6, where any authorized person may on reasonable suspicion seize and hold a vehicle until after the criminal proceedings have been concluded. As we know today, criminal proceedings can take a very long time. They can take months to complete or in many cases before they even come before the courts. If they go to appeal, those proceedings can then take very much longer still. Here we have a position where any policeman, railway policeman or any authorized official, if he should take a dislike to a particular motor carrier, can say: I have reason to suspect that you are undertaking illegal motor conveyance, and he can then confiscate that vehicle and hold it and completely cripple or close down a business on his mere word that he had reason to suspect that there was an offence. We feel that this is taking the matter further than appears necessary unless the Minister can justify that particular clause in his reply or in the Committee Stage. It is too open to abitrary victimization, and the effect of it would be not merely inconvenience, but it could be completely crippling to any person who has vehicles so confiscated. So, although we believe that it is necessary to wipe out this illegal practice, we feel that those two aspects should be considered more carefully. We feel that a contribution could be made by a change of policy and attitude in the Department to the whole question of motor carriers.

Despite our disagreement on the two details, this side will support this Bill. We particularly hope that the tremendous illegal traffic which is going on in passengers at the moment will be brought to an end, and the legitimate carrier given his fair chance to carry the traffic which is offering.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Point) asked the hon. the Minister whether the reason for all this illegal transportation, one of its causes, was not to be found in the policy of the Government in acting so strictly with regard to the granting of certificates and exemption for the transportation of goods.

I asked whether it was not a contributory reason.

Yes, the hon. member asked whether it was not one of the main contributory reasons, or whatever the hon. member would have it.

I cannot agree with that in the least. I cannot see the point. The principle on which the Motor Carrier Transportation Act is based was set out very clearly in 1930. Although the Act has since been amended in virtually all respects, that basic premise in respect of exemptions and permits has remained unchanged through the years. In brief, the principle is that where adequate transportation is available to the public in a certain vicinity, transportation at equitable freightage, a permit or a certificate must be refused. Unless that principle is upheld—and how can it be upheld if not by means of a permit system?—private conveyors would simply be given a free rein. We know that the Opposition has made representations through the years that a larger volume of the transport should be given to private conveyors. This side of the House differs with them in that respect. We maintain that it simply cannot be done. The fact of the matter is, Sir, that the revenue of the Railways is constituted in such a way that less than 20 per cent of their transportation is high tariff transportation. That 20 per cent or less yields 50 per cent or more of the Railways’ revenue. It is in fact that small volume of freight, that less than 20 per cent high tariff transportation, which is at issue. One has to take care not to open the door in this respect, otherwise the entire balance of the Railways’ revenue may be disturbed.

Having regard to that basic principle on which the Act is founded, and having regard also to the fact that certain undertakings must be protected—particularly the national transportation system, i.e. the Railways—there have been concessions in recent years. We merely have to consider that so far an amount of almost R2,000 million has been invested in the national transportation system of the country, in the Railways, and that 225,000 people are employed by that concern. It will then be appreciated that this great national institution cannot be curbed and that its revenue cannot be prejudiced by issuing permits freely. During recent years, however, the boards have shown a great deal of leniency and have awarded certificates more freely. I may inform the hon. member for Durban (Point) that during the year 1961-’62, 38,591 certificates were granted, while 23.133 temporary permits were issued. During the past years more and more concessions have been made to private conveyors and during the year 1965-’66, 53,030 permits were granted, while 32,001 temporary permits were issued. That means, Sir, that in less than five years 23,000 more certificates were issued. That proves that there was in fact a relaxation.

There should have been 100,000 more.

We know that the hon. member would like to have no control whatsoever. He wants free competition because he does not care for the national interests that have to be protected. But the hon. member for Durban (Point) is more sensible and I am speaking to him. Apart from the leniency of the Road Transportation Board, unauthorized transportation has increased out of all proportion in recent years. One need only consider the number of offences and prosecutions in that regard. In addition to the information furnished by the Minister, I may mention that in the past year there were 4.043 prosecutions, with 2.500 convictions, while an amount of R71,795 was collected in fines. We know that the inspectorate has a small staff. These figures are just an indication of the proportions this illegal traffic has assumed, notwithstanding the leniency on the part of the boards in issuing permits more freely.

I now come to the other point made here by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely that he considers it quite impracticable and quite unjustified that there is now the possibility that a person’s load may be confiscated.

That is not what I said. I said that the onus was now placed on the owner.

It is quite clear that if we want to tackle this matter successfully—which the hon. member for Durban (Point) also wants—we shall be compelled to come to grips with the unscrupulous consignors as well. This matter cannot be dealt with by pinning down the contractor only, the man who undertakes illegal transportation. There is very clear evidence of collusion, that there is indeed organized collusion by consignors and that there is soliciting and encouragement by consignors to persuade unauthorized conveyors to convey their freight. Why should only the man conveying the freight be pinned down? It should also be possible to get at the true culprit, the man behind the plot. There is collusion to conduct this illegal traffic. If the person soliciting the conveyor is not pinned down, we shall not be able to eradicate this illegal transportation traffic. I agree with the hon. the Minister and with hon. members on the opposite side that the decent, honest private conveyor has nothing to fear under this measure.

He has.

Then the hon. member must prove that.

I will.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made no such accusation. As I said, Sir, the honest, decent private conveyor has nothing to fear in this respect. In fact, this measure gives him even more protection than that he enjoyed in the past, because a concession is made here. In the existing Act the following was stated in respect of the defence: “If it is proved that such other person did not know that the said motor vehicle was being or would be used for carrying on of unauthorized motor carrier transportation or that he could not prevent such use…” Now is added: “or that such other person did not know that the transportation of the said goods constituted or would constitute the carrying on of unauthorized motor carrier transportation or that he could not prevent the carrying on of such transportation.” This defence is now expanded. Matters are now facilitated for such a man. This principle of the presumption has always been in the Act. It also applied in respect of the confiscation of the vehicle. It is now merely extended to the load. Unless we do that, we cannot penetrate to the root of this evil and we cannot make this Act a successful instrument with which to combat this evil, because it is quite clear that the deterrents in the Act at present fail to deter those people, and that has wide implications. Apart from the implications mentioned by the hon. the Minister, namely, its effect on other transportation, such as the road transportation system of the Railways and private conveyors who undertake transportation legally. It has an effect which cannot be determined easily. I may give one example of how it affects the farmers. I am told by a colleague that in the Standerton region, if he markets tomatoes in Johannesburg and the market collapses and prices fall and tomatoes fetch 10c a box there, as against 50c a box in Durban, and he loads a consignment in order to catch the more favourable market in Durban, then before his consignment gets there the Indians have bought up a couple of loads of tomatoes at the lower price in Johannesburg and have taken them to Durban, and then they break the market there. Can you see the implications for act timeously. Various loopholes may be found, but it is very easy to ascertain whether a man is authorized to convey the goods. At present the Act provides that if a man has his name in the telephone directory as a conveyor one may ring him and ask him to convey the goods, and that would constitute adequate defence, even if he has some unlicensed trucks on the road. The Act provides that no one may pretend or may make it known to the public that he is authorized to convey goods unless he has a permit. That is provided by the Act and that is one’s defence. There is no need to obtain confirmation in writing from every person. Nor is it necessary to see every man’s certificate. We cannot make the concession requested by the hon. member without frustrating the aims of the Bill.

I want to associate myself in a few words with the hon. member for Durban (Point), particularly in connection with two matters raised by him. The one is Clause 6, which provides that an authorized officer may in certain circumstances seize any motor vehicle and the goods conveyed thereon if he has reasonable grounds to suspect that such conveyance is being done illegally; and the vehicle may be put out of action until the criminal case has been concluded. This is a far-reaching provision, and I hope the Minister will give the matter further consideration before introducing something like this into our legislation. I just want to ask him this. The hon. member for Parow said that the innocent haulier had nothing to fear. I now want to ask the Minister, also on behalf of the hon. member for Parow, that if it appears that an authorized officer has seized a vehicle and the goods thereon in good faith and it is proved on the case being heard that the man was innocent and has suffered losses as a result of his possessions having been put out of action, what compensation is he going to receive? Will the Department compensate him or will he just have to bear his losses? If the Minister does not get up and say that something will be done to compensate such an innocent person for an injustice suffered by him as a result of suspicion on the part of an officer, then I repeat what I have said by way of interjection, namely that innocent people do have something to fear in terms of clause 6. I am pleased to know that the hon. member for Parow feels as I do that something like that may not be allowed to happen. For that reason I shall be interested to learn what assurance the hon. the Minister can give us in this regard.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister in a few words whether, as it was put to him by the hon. member for Durban (Point), he does not feel that the problem he wants to combat here has deep-rooted causes which we may not ignore? Why is it that otherwise honest businessmen and hauliers lend themselves to these practices? Is it not perhaps because there is a fundamental need, which is greater than we realize, for additional transport? The hon. member for Parow stated the existing legal position very clearly, and that is that if there is a sufficient number of transportation businesses in an area which can convey goods at reasonable tariffs, such people enjoy protection. But if there is sufficient transportation at reasonable tariffs why are these things happening? If that was the case, that need would surely have been satisfied. It worries one that this phenomenon is so general and that such drastic steps must be taken to combat it. What is the cause? It is a statutory crime, an artificial crime, which is being created. In general the trend is for people to render legal services, and to convey goods is in itself not illegal; it is not immoral. The clause is intended to protect other interests. Are we protecting something which is really satisfying the need? In that case we must make a common and strong stand on its behalf. But here there seems to be something more profound than we realize. For that reason I am also interested in the question asked by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely, whether this line of action does not perhaps follow on interim representations or reports which came from the Marais Commission? We hope that the Marais Commission will report on this deeper problem mentioned by me and that this Bill is not proof that the Government rejects in anticipation any recommendations which may be made in this connection because it is determined to put the interests of the Railways first, even above the national interests of the country, because this is the reply to the hon. member for Parow, who spoke of national interests and those of the Railways. It does not follow axiomatically that Railway interests are always the same as national interests. We all want to protect the enormous investment in this fine undertaking, the S.A. Railways. However, if changes must be effected in the interests of the country, we say that the prosperity and the welfare of South Africa must have priority in the matter. We shall hear with interest what the hon. the Minister has to say about this matter.

I want to deal at once with the question put by the hon. member for Yeoville. In regard to the report of the Marais Commission, I just want to tell him that that report has, of course, not been submitted as yet. Nor is this amendment based on the inquiry instituted by the Marais Commission. I think the hon. member for Yeoville will, after all, admit that we would not come to this House with legislation unless the experience we have gained in the past year has furnished adequate proof that it is essential to take steps in order to curb this unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The hon. member asked: What causes otherwise honest businessmen to render themselves guilty of unauthorized motor carrier transportation? In the first place the hon. member knows, of course, that this unauthorized motor carrier transportation is more profitable, because the haulier usually conveys the goods at a lower tariff. But apart from that we have the so-called system of agents in this connection. It is quite possible that businessmen who are honourable and honest, may unknowingly and unwittingly render themselves guilty of unauthorized motor carrier transportation, because it has been found in recent years that there are agents who simply make a point of recruiting hauliers for the purpose of conveying the goods of industrialists by road. They give the large firms and factories the assurance that they are authorized hauliers, that they have at their disposal a large fleet of motor vehicles and that they undertake motor carrier transportation to and from any part of the Republic. Well, what happens? They, the agents and the businessman, agree on a fixed price for the transportation of certain goods, and then they simply instruct one of their sub-contractors, one who has a motor vehicle, to undertake this unauthorized motor carrier transportation, and then they receive a considerable share of the transportation fee as commission for the work they have done. It is therefore quite possible that a businessman may be unaware of the fact that his goods are being conveyed by means of unauthorized transportation.

How can he prove that? In terms of this amendment he will forfeit his goods now.

He can prove it quite easily. The hon. member for Durban (Point) said that we could argue about this matter, and we shall most certainly do so at the Committee Stage. It is my opinion that the amendment we are effecting in paragraph (b) of clause 3 makes it easier for the owner or the consignor of goods or for agents acting on their behalf to prove that they are innocent because they did not know that the transportation they were using constituted unauthorized motor carrier transportation. However, the two objections raised by the Opposition in regard to clause 3 and 6 can be discussed at length during the Committee Stage. I am still convinced, along with the hon. member for Parow, that the honest person, whether he may be a haulier, an owner of goods or a consignor of goods, who has his goods conveyed by authorized motor carrier transportation and who, for as far as it is within his power, sees to it that such goods are conveyed by authorized motor carrier transportation, has no reason to fear the amendment which is being effected here. It is only man who wants to avail himself of unauthorized motor carrier transportation who has every reason to fear this amendment. I am convinced that the penalties, which we are increasing considerably, will be an adequate deterrent for curbing unauthorized motor carrier transportation.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) wanted to know whether I thought that the policy of my Department, the policy of the road transportation boards, of being very strict in granting certificates and exemptions, might not possibly be the cause of unauthorized motor carrier transportation. The hon. member for Parow has already referred to the number of certificates and exemptions and shown how it had increased in the course of years. In the past five years the number of annual and temporary certificates has increased by no fewer than 25,000.

Does that include coal certificates?

No. I shall come to that presently. The number of annual and temporary exemptions in respect of assistant hauliers has increased by 19,000 in the past five years. The hon. member referred to coal certificates. In 1964 concessions were made, for which application to the road transportation boards is not necessary at present, for extending the cartage areas of Durban, Cape Town, Pretoria and the Witwatersrand, as well as for considerably larger delivery areas for the transportation by both hauliers and auxiliary hauliers of certain specified goods, in cases where road transportation is from the nature of the case the obvious means of transport. I do think that adequate possibilities have been and are being created so as not to handicap road hauliers and businessmen unnecessarily in respect of the transportation of their goods. The road transportation boards must make this grant in respect of certificates and exemptions on a very clear basis of policy. “Whenever any transportation facilities in exisstence within any area or over any route, are, in the opinion of the Commission or a local board concerned, satisfactory and sufficient to meet at a reasonable charge the transportation requirements of the public within that area or along that route, the Commission or such local board shall not grant any motor carrier certificate…” I think this basis on which they are working is a fair one. I think the members of the road transportation boards are, like all of us, merely human and they also make mistakes, but I think that it has in general always been our experience that they have granted certificates and exemptions strictly according to this basis.

At this stage I do not want to go into these matters any further. The hon. member for Durban (Point) himself thought that we could settle the possible differences in respect of certain clauses more successfully at the Committee Stage, and I prefer to follow that course. I wish to extend my cordial thanks to the Opposition for their support. It does not often happen that the Opposition surprises me, but to-day I was really pleasantly surprised by them and I want to thank them heartily for the support they promised.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the provisions of this Bill amend a number of Railways Acts, and the implications of each clause are explained in the explanatory memorandum which was Tabled on 23rd January, 1967. The amendments are not contentious and my observations will therefore be brief.

Clause 1 is of a consequential nature and arises from the amendment of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act with which the House has just dealt. Clause 2 raises the age of retirement of all navigation officers in the South African Airways from 53 to 55 years and reduces that of flight engineer officers from 63 to 55 years. However navigation officers who joined the Service before 1st January, 1959, will still be able to retire at any time after attaining the age of 50 years, should they choose to do so. The proposed raised age of retirement is introduced at the request of the members of the staff concerned and, in view of their having valuable knowledge at the age of 53, it is felt that the services of those members of staff who are still medically fit, should be retained for the longest period possible.

The raised retiring age of all pilots in the South African Airways, that is, from 53 to 55 years, has already been approved by Parliament during the first session of 1966, and it is considered that navigation officers should be on a par with pilots as far as their retiring age and pension benefits are concerned. Flight engineer officers have requested that their retiring age be reduced from 63 to 55 years. The reasons they advanced in support of their request were that they were subjected to the same medical examination as navigators, and that they were under the same mental and physical strain as pilots. Other airlines also make provision for their flight engineer officers to retire at the age of 55 years if they choose to do so.

Clauses 3 to 8 are of a consequential nature and arise from the amendment proposed in clause 2 in regard to the retiring age of certain members of the airways staff.

Clause 9 makes provision for the validation of certain changes in the conditions of employment of the staff which were introduced with retrospective effect by means of amendments to regulations.

Mr. Speaker, clause 1 of the Bill tends to cause one some concern since we do not want to see two parallel police forces with parallel jurisdiction in South Africa. But, in view of the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that the jurisdiction will be restricted to cases where powers are specially conferred upon the Railway Police by Parliament, we cannot object to it. However, we hope that it will not be accepted as a principle that it is possible for us to have parallel police forces in South Africa.

Then I must add that I was totally amazed at finding that not once, but twice on one day the Opposition supported the principle of a bill relating to Railway matters. As regards the previous Bill we agreed as to the principle, but we said that there were differences of opinion on minor points of the Bill. However, in this regard we are in full agreement and I think the reason for our being so is that in this case the Deputy Minister wants to comply with a request made by the organization of a group of workers on the Railways. It is a reasonable request and when the Railways Administration grants reasonable requests of the staff, they may always depend on the support of the Opposition. We only hope that they will realise more often that the requests of the staff are not always unreasonable.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that there is no danger whatsoever—nor do I think he believes that such a danger does exist—of two police forces developing in South Africa at present. Surely he understands quite clearly what the South African Railways Police Force is going to be used for. Then I just want to thank the hon. member cordially for the support promised by the Opposition in regard to this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.