During the Second Reading debate on the Suppression of Communism Amendment Bill I ordered the hon. member for Musgrave to withdraw the word “misrepresent”. I have now gone into the matter and find that, in the past, members were only requested to withdraw the word “misrepresent” or “misrepresentation” when it was qualified by words such as “deliberate”, “wilful”, “choose to” or “intentional”. In future, the words “misrepresent” and “misrepresentation” will not, unless qualified, be regarded as unparliamentary.

I should like a little information on Item 1203, Durban Harbour: Construct Pier No. 1. I ask this particularly because in a previous item in these Estimates, Stage 2 is mentioned, and I would like a little differentiation from the Minister to see whether there is any change here.

Stage 1 is in different parts. There is the Railway portion and the Harbour portion. This particular item refers to the harbour portion, the construction of the pier. An additional amount of R2 million is required, because the work has progressed much quicker than we anticipated, and consequently the whole scheme will be completed much sooner than we expected.

Can the hon. the Minister give us a date now?

Probably in 1969.

Head put and agreed to.

I move—

This Bill has emerged from the Committee Stage with no amendments which are of any effect and our objections to its consequences still stand, although there is one amendment moved by the Minister which certainly improves the Bill. That is the amendment made in clause 2. But after having had the Committee Stage and after having heard the Minister on clauses 1 and 4, we are more determined than ever before that the Bill should not be passed in its present form. In clause 1 we tried to improve the Bill. Unfortunately, in terms of the rules, we were not able to amend the clause, and it appears that as the law stands now anyone who is listed can be denied the right to participate in any type of organization whatsoever because of a proclamation published by the Minister’s predecessor, the present Prime Minister, in which certain people were prohibited from taking part in any type of organization which criticized or defended any form of government or any policy of the Government of this country. We pointed out then that this could prohibit listed people from taking part in any activity whatever, because they would not know which organizations would be affected. In his reply the Minister said that it would not apply to churches, but I submit that it is not for him to say that; it is for the prosecutor and the magistrate to say if anyone happens to be prosecuted. We asked the Minister to give us the assurance that in future he would not apply the law in the extended form which this clause would now allow him to do it, and we would be glad to get some assurance that he would in future confine its application to certain named organizations or their associate organizations.

Then we come to clause 4. Sir, this is an amazing clause because it adds a clause which allows the State President or the Administrator of South-West Africa to deport a citizen without giving him prior notice. When we asked the Minister to explain exactly why this was being introduced, he started off by saying that it did not apply to a citizen of the country, and when we pointed out that it did and that the only person to whom it did not apply was a citizen by birth or descent, he granted that was correct. Then he said that he wanted this amendment because as the law now stands a person who had been convicted of an offence, first had to be heard before he could be deported and he said that sometimes reasons had to be given as to why he was to be deported. He said—

What the hon. the Minister was saying was that because the person concerned had already been heard in a court of law, it was not necessary to give him a further opportunity of being heard before a court before being deported. But, Sir, that is not correct, of course. This section does not apply only to persons who have been convicted by a court of law. It also applies to a person who can be named by the President or the Administrator of South-West Africa as an undesirable inhabitant because he is a communist. The Minister admitted that was correct and said to me that if I wished to delete the words “as a communist” I could do so and that he would do so gladly, but he said that in that case I must take the responsibility for the deletion of those words. When we asked him whether he was joking he said he was perfectly serious. Obviously then, if the Minister is serious these words are not necessary in this particular clause.

I want to know whether the Minister’s attitude now is to leave the responsibility for fighting Communism to the United Party. If the Minister wants me to take the responsibility for deleting those words, then he must let me take over that portfolio and be responsible for the administration of the Act. What is the good of giving me responsibility if I have no authority? I say that the hon. the Minister in retaining those words has shown that he is not a suitable person to be responsible for the administration of this Act. If the Minister is prepared to hand over his authority in that way and to leave it to me to decide whether an important amendment should be moved or not then I say that we cannot be satisfied that he will apply his mind with any conviction in considering the matters which he has to consider in terms of this Act. If the Minister is so irresolute in deciding whether certain important words should be left out or not, then I say that we are more convinced than ever that the Minister and the officials of his Department are not the right people to decide whether an attorney or an advocate should be allowed to practise in terms of clause 2 which we so strenuously opposed in the Second Reading debate.

We fear that by giving the Minister and the Secretary of Justice the power to intervene and to tell the courts who may practise and who may not, we are in fact handing over to the Security Police, and the hon. the Minister’s attitude in the committee stage has justified our fears. It is the Security Police who will say whether a person may practise or not because the Minister will only have the Security Police to rely upon in making up his mind whether a person should be listed or taken off the list or not; whether a person should be absolved from the consequences of the offence of which he was convicted or whether he should in fact give him a certificate to allow him to practise. We say that those decisions will be made by the Security Police in future and we do not think it is right that the Minister or his Department should be able to have the final say. We were prepared to allow the Attorney-General or the Secretary for Justice to become a party to a court action and to object to allowing a person to continue to practise or in prohibiting him from becoming a practitioner. We stressed then that if we denied the courts this right, that if we interfered with the independence of the courts, we would be ruining the prestige of our courts and the esteem in which they are held.

Sir, why are our courts held in such high esteem? Simply because the practitioners and the Judges and the magistrates knew that they could act independently and that there would be no political interference. This is what happened in Germany. One only has to read “The Rise and the Fall of the Third Reich” to realize that this very thing which we fear might happen, did in fact happen in Germany. In Germany one Judge said that the Judges thought afterwards that their duty was to interpret the law as Hitler or as National Socialism wanted it interpreted.

Although the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite may decry the allegation that this may be intimidation, lawyers will be afraid to be associated too closely with their clients and their cause, on the ground that their livelihood and the security of their families may be jeopardized. We say that we are justified in fearing political interference— and the Minister said there should be political interference—and there is therefore justification for the fear in the minds of practitioners that political interference might jeopardize their future. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister again to pause, and to think twice. He has an opportunity of amending the Bill in the Other Place. We have pointed out our fear. He knows that the Law Societies and the Bar Councils are not at one with him on this issue. He must consider the fears that we have expressed here: he must bear in mind the prestige of our courts, a prestige which has been built up over the centuries. The Law Societies and the Bar Councils have disciplined their members in the past. The hon. member for Prinshof asked what action the Law Society took against Mandela. He knows that the Law Society did take action against Mandela but he knows that the Supreme Court in the Transvaal refused to strike his name off the roll.

Did they take action against Joe Slovo?

I am dealing with Mandela. The courts refused to strike his name off the roll because they felt that they did not want to interfere in political cases. But there was a different decision in the Cape. The Cape court held differently. Our amendment would have made it quite clear to the courts that in future they should take offences of this nature in consideration in deciding whether or not a man is fit to practise at the Bar or Side Bar. We say again: Leave it to the law societies, with the permission given to the Attorney General or to the Secretary for Justice to intervene where they consider it necessary. If you do that, Sir, the courts will then have all the information available to them. I submit that we can leave it to the courts themselves to deal with these cases.

This House must now decide whether we are going to approve the Third Reading of this Bill or whether we are to yield to the Opposition’s objections at this late stage. Mr. Speaker, having listened to the hon. members of the Opposition, one comes to the conclusion that they have advanced very few new ideas since the passing of the original Act in 1950. They also opposed the principal Act, and Adv. Strauss, then their leader, moved as follows on 14th June, 1950—

Exactly the same story as that with which the hon. member who has just sat down came to the House. In his speech he once again expressed dark forebodings about political interference with our courts and with our legal profession, like that which was threatened in erstwhile Nazi Germany. How ridiculous that is. This principal Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1950. We have had the implementation of this principal Act, with its amendments, since 1950. Are we not at present still enjoying a free democracy, with one difference only, namely that Communism has been destroyed root and branch, thanks to the legislation of the National Party and thanks to the alert action taken by our various Ministers of Justice? This legislation which is now to be placed on the Statute Book will be the final blow to communism, because it deprives communist legal practitioners of the opportunity to be privileged avangelists. Now the Opposition has once again adopted that attitude. Communism must be kept out of the legal profession, but it must be done only through the assistance of the courts. In the Motor Transportation Amendment Act which we passed recently we introduced a clause in terms of which the maximum sentence shall in future be imposed on a person after his third conviction under that Act. It is a far-reaching principle which is involved there. In that case we said that in future the court would be compelled to impose the maximum fine, without having any discretion, if the person has been convicted three times under that Act. What is the difference in principle if in one case we tell the court that it has no discretion and that the maximum fine must be imposed on a man, or if in this case we say that if a man is a communist or a listed person, the court shall have no discretion? The man must be removed from the roll of legal practitioners, or he may not become a legal practitioner.

But there is this major difference, which is the reason why the Opposition did not object. In one case the rights of pinks, reds and communists are at issue, and if they object in this connection they have a world platform for their objections. In the other case it involves only the rights of ordinary transportation contractors and they will have no world platform for their ideas. The Opposition have not been able to counter the objections from the Government side as regards the Government’s attitude in respect of our courts. Our attitude is that the courts should not be involved in this matter because in most cases the witnesses are spies and collaborators, and it is not desirable that such evidence should be made public or that the identity of witnesses should be revealed. In political trials of this nature the onus will be on the Attorney-General, and in some cases he will find it extremely difficult to exercize the onus. A third reason is that trials will be long and time consuming. I submit that the Opposition has not met the case we presented in this regard. I want to tell the lawyers on the opposite side this: The general spirit of contempt which they displayed towards this side of the House, as though we did not want to take the courts into consideration and as though we did not want to enforce the law properly, we for our part fling back at them in contempt. This side has lawyers who are just as much steeped in our proud legal system as they are. This side has as much respect and esteem for our courts. We on this side feel that we have had Ministers who have at all times been fair and just in the implementation of this principal Act and its various amending Acts. A striking example of that is the insertion by the hon. the Minister of section 5quat (2) of the Act, as it now stands on the Statute Book

In conclusion I want to say that in this debate it has become clear once again why the country could never afford to have this Opposition in power. This country cannot afford that because the Opposition are nothing but political Kerenskys. We know that Kerensky came into power in February, 1917, after the Russian Revolution. He tried to set up a just and moderate government in Russia. His government lasted a few months, until October, 1917, when the Bolsheviks took over. He failed because he wanted to be servile, accommodating and fair to people who for their part were never prepared to be that. That is what the Opposition has always tried to do in the past and is now trying to do again as regards our security legislation. They are always trying to water it down. They always want to be accommodating and they always want to be fair to an unreasonable extent. For that reason this nation will never put those political Kerenskys into power.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Kroonstad is an attorney. If he is, all I can say is that I am disgusted that a professional man should make the sort of statement that hon. member has made this afternoon. Other than to make that remark, I intend to ignore him.

This afternoon I wish to deal with a matter of considerably more importance, as far as I am concerned at any rate, and that is in regard to the subject of the right of appeal of listed persons to the courts. It was a subject with which we dealt at some length in the Committee Stage. I wish to continue the discussion on that subject and to have complete clarity once and for all. What I intend to attempt to show to the House is that the law as it stands at present does not, as suggested by the hon. the Minister and by the hon. member for Omaruru, provide for a right of appeal to the court against a decision of the liquidator. I propose to show that this is in fact the legal position. I propose thereafter to ask the hon. the Minister, in view of his attitude that there is a right of appeal which implies his acceptance of the fact that there should be a right of appeal, whether he will not amend the law, perhaps in the Other House, so as to make it clear beyond any doubt that there is a full right of appeal. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the general impression, arising from the reported cases, which have been before our courts, is that there is not a full right of appeal, but that there is only at the most a right which amounts to very little more than a right of review based on mala fides. The hon. member for Omaruru referred to the case of Gool versus the Minister of Justice. Incidentally, he gave us the wrong reference, but I shall forgive him for that. The right reference, for his convenience, is South African Law Reports, 1955 (2), not 1965 (4) S.A.L.R. He was also wrong about the page number. In addition, he was also wrong about what the judges held in that case. In order to understand the effect of Gool’s case, which, incidentally, was decided after the amendment of section 8bis, to which the hon. the Minister referred, it is necessary to have a look at the case of Tefu versus the Minister of Justice, which is reported in S.A.L.R. 1953 (2), at page 61.

Is the hon. member not going beyond the scope of the Bill now?

No, Sir, I shall try to be as brief as I can.

Outside the Bill?

No, within the Bill, Sir. I submit to you that this question of the right of appeal of a listed person to the courts is so important that it is a subject which ought to be cleared up once and for all. It does fall within the ambit of the Bill because it formed one of the most important grounds upon which the Minister justified the proposed amendment which he is seeking to introduce.

Tefu’s case was decided before the amendment to section 8bis was introduced. It is important to bear this in mind because the amendment to section 8bis was introduced the very next year by this Parliament and one must presume that it was introduced in order to cover what the Government would regard as the loophole which the courts found in Tefu’s case. In that case the court decided that whilst there was a right of appeal of some sort, there was no provision for the liquidator to place before the court the information upon which he acted and so the court held that the right was very emasculated. But it was held that there was nevertheless in principle a right. Now the amendment in section 8bis clearly places the onus on the listed person, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Omaruru, to justify the removal of his name from the list.

Let us now come to Gool’s case. I should like to point out also that Gool’s case had nothing to do with section 8bis. It was not concerned with the interpretation of that section, as was suggested by the hon. member for Omaruru. What happened here was that there was an application by Mrs. Gool to the court interdicting the hon. the Minister from exercising powers which he had under the Suppression of Communism Act, pending her action to have her name removed from the list. In the judgment in Gool’s case the court was not concerned, therefore, with the interpretation of section 8bis, which is the section upon which the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Omaruru rely. In regard to Gool’s case, the statements quoted by the hon. member for Omaruru as far as I can see, do not appear. For example the hon. member for Omaruru said that in this case it was decided that there must be a full investigation into all the facts upon which the liquidator came to the decision and that the court then had a duty to make a fresh finding as to whether the liquidator’s decision was correct or not. There is no such statement in Gool’s case. The hon. member also said a person had full recourse to the courts and every right to adduce evidence to show why he should not be listed and it will then be the duty of the liquidator to place the evidence at his disposal before the court so as to enable the court to judge whether a person’s name should remain on the list or not. There is once again no such statement in Gool’s case.

The hon. member is making a Second Reading speech again. He is replying to a speech which was delivered during the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not press the point. Would you allow me to refer to just one passage in Gool’s case which, as I emphasized during the Second Reading, makes it clear that the basis of the application to the courts is on the grounds of mala fides. The passage reads as follows:

The point I am making is that the court states that the interdict had to do with restraining the exercise of statutory powers, which is the position under section 8bis, namely the restraining of the exercise of the liquidator’s powers to have a name placed or maintained on the list. The court stated clearly that, in these questions, the test is one of mala fides. As the hon. member for Omaruru pointed out, when such a test applies, the action is so limited as to make it virtually impossible. And so the point that I wish to make is that it is extremely doubtful—to put it at its highest in favour of the Government—that the statements made that there is a right of appeal are in fact correct as the law has been interpreted by the courts. I would therefore appeal to the Minister to clarify this point since he appears to concede that a right of appeal would be reasonable and is in fact justified. He should clarify the position by amending the law to make it clear beyond doubt that there is a full right of appeal.

In the little time left to me I should like to emphasize that we are very much concerned with stamping out Communism in South Africa. We are not anywhere … [Interjections.] I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I allowed myself to be digressed by the interjection. We on this side are very much against Communism, but what we are also against is giving power to the Minister and to Government officials to determine without any right of recourse to the court who should be regarded as a communist and who should not. This is a power that we believe should not be placed in the hands of these persons, because they are not in a position to test the evidence. They are not in a position to give the persons concerned the type of hearing which the courts would give them, and which we in a western democracy have come to regard as essential to the practice of justice as we know it.

This is the main reason why we remain opposed to this Bill being passed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that immediately after I had completed my speech I gave the hon. member for Durban (North) the correct reference—which I had quoted incorrectly in my speech. The reference to 1965 (4) p. 484 related to a later case and not to the Gool case. The Gool case was 1955 (2). That is how I noted it down, but it was just a slip on my part and immediately after my speech I gave the correct reference to the hon. member, in case it was regarded as an important point that I had made.

I just want to point out that the hon. member who has just sat down is making the mistake to think that we are now submitting a case to a judge. Hon. members on the opposite side argue theoretically and indulge in a play on words. The point I made, and which I adhere to, is that according to the tenor of all the cases to which I referred it is quite clear that the court has to have due regard to all the facts taken into consideration by the liquidator, in order to judge whether the decision of the liquidator was correct. In a later case, i.e. the 1965 case, the following is clearly stated—

Although that was an application against the liquidator, and not the principal case, the court made it clear in its obiter dictum—as it is called in legal terms—that what would take place in a trial would be a thorough investigation into all the facts. For that reason I said that the court would in fact go into the matter thoroughly and that it would not be an ordinary instance of reviewing, as is generally held.

There is a further point I should like to explain to the hon. member for Musgrave. I submitted here that if the case were taken to court, the onus would be on the Attorney-General to prove that the person was a communist. The hon. member then said—and I have looked that up in Hansard—that if the position was as alleged by me and the onus was a heavy onus, then that side of the House would have to reconsider their attitude in that connection. The reason for that is that the hon. member realized that it is very difficult to prove that someone is a communist. I am not going to argue that again; I have already set that out in full. I want to emphasize—I do not know whether the hon. member has perhaps not a very good grasp of Afrikaans—that I am now dealing with an application to a court to have a person declared a communist. I just want to repeat and say in explanation that the onus which rests on a person—such as the Attorney-General, in this case—who goes to court to deprive a man of a benefit—because the man has the right to practise—is a heavy onus. Therefore the onus which rests on the Attorney-General to convince the court that the man is a communist will be a heavy onus. It will not be adequate simply to bring it to the attention of the court that the person is listed or something of that kind.

To the hon. member for Transkei I just want to say that he advanced the argument here that the hon. the Minister could no longer be relied on because the Minister had to rely on the Security Police, and that the latter actually decided whether or not a man should be listed. Surely the hon. member knows that is not true. It is the liquidator who has to decide whether or not a person should be listed, and not the Security Police. The liquidator has to take all the facts into consideration before he can decide whether such a person should be listed. That decision is not taken by the hon. the Minister of Justice. That is the point. The hon. member alleged that the hon. the Minister of Justice was the person to judge with regard to the other paragraph whether or not a communist should be expelled. He then said that he could not rely on the Minister’s judgment. But the Minister is not the person to judge.

The Minister can have the name removed from the list.

Yes, he can later have the name taken off the list, but as far as listing the name is concerned it is the liquidator who has to decide.

But the Minister can later have the name removed.

Yes, he can later have the name removed if he likes. But as regards the listing itself, that decision rests with the liquidator.

I do not want to go into the matter again, because we have already discussed it thoroughly. I just want to point out again—because the Opposition insists so strongly that the court and not the Minister should decide—that it is much better that a Minister is criticized because he has listed a person or has allowed a person who was previously a communist to be readmitted to the roll of attorneys, than that a court should be criticized by the public. Because the court is dragged into politics only when it has to decide whether a person took part in communistic activities and whether a communist should be removed from the list again.

I listened with some amazement to some of the arguments just presented by the hon. member for Omaruru. If we take that to its logical conclusion, his argument is that the courts should be excluded from all decisions relating to any political offences whatever, because according to the hon. member, this is dragging the courts into politics if they are to be left to decide whether a man is a communist or is to be prevented from practising law. He would rather that the hon. the Minister took the onus on himself or faced that criticism instead of the courts. This is a ludicrous argument. The courts are perfectly able to face up to criticism, since the cases that come before them are heard in public and the accused is given the opportunity of defending himself, and the accused person is told of the crimes with which he is charged; and justice is seen to be done, which is surely the basic principle of law. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is in no way attempting to take over the authority of the courts in order to protect the courts in this regard. It is a perfectly absurd argument.

I want to say that at this Third Reading I see absolutely no reason whatever to change the attitude I adopted towards the Bill at the Second Reading. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says he expected it, and he obviously expected it because he knew that he would not accept any amendments of any consequence in the Committee stage, and no such amendment has in fact been adopted. There has been only one amendment which was some improvement, I grant him at once.

But I offered a second amendment which you warned the hon. member for Transkei not to accept.

Yes, because I saw through the Minister’s political motives. That is why I warned the hon. member for Transkei against accepting what appeared to be a very generous offer by the Minister. He was only waiting for the hon. member for Transkei to move that the word “Communism” be struck from the Bill, and then he and his colleagues could go rampaging throughout the country from platform to platform …

Order! That is irrelevant.

I admit that I allowed myself to be diverted. The Minister has moved one amendment which to some extent, but unfortunately to a very small extent only, lessened the impact of clause 2. Other than that, we have nothing except the odd assurance which I for one was glad to get, but those assurances are not embodied in the law and any successor to the Minister need not carry them out, although I am sure the Minister himself will carry out the assurances he gave. Therefore my major objections to this Bill still stand, namely the retrospective nature of this Bill and the fact that people can be penalized for things they did at a time when those actions were not illegal, like being members or supporters of organizations which subsequently became banned organizations, and the fact that persons can be listed in retrospect, and the listing also carries with it certain definite penalties. As far as clause 2 is concerned, I want to say again that my objections are those which have been voiced by the official Opposition, together with other objections. Apart from the fact that the courts are no longer handling the disbarring of persons from the Bar or the Side Bar, my objections go much further, and that is that there is a not even subtle but a very obvious intimidatory tone to the whole of clause 2 which I believe will inhibit members of the legal profession from carrying out their duties in a purely professional way, and that is to undertake the defence of people who are charged with so-called crimes against the State.

On what ground do you say that?

I say this very definitely because it is my experience that already at the Side Bar there is a decided reluctance on the part of members of the Side Bar to defend political cases.

Because they have guilty consciences.

No, they do not have guilty consciences, but they do not want to be involved in such cases, and that is the simple truth of it. And I might say that the Side Bar Association itself, the actual Law Society itself, is by no means free of this taint that they, too, have allowed themselves to become intimidated.

Rubbish!

It is not rubbish. I say this very definitely. They took no steps whatever in defence of their own members who came under ministerial stricture over the past few years. They have not taken up the cudgels for respectable members of their own society when they should have done so. [Interjections.] Nobody knows that anyone is guilty until that person has been charged in a court of law, as far as I am concerned, and it certainly should also be as far as the hon. member for Heilbron is concerned, who is a member of the Bar. Nobody is guilty until he is convicted in a court of law. I am not prepared to accept ministerial judgments which have not been heard in open court, and where a person has not been told what he is charged with and has not been given the opportunity to have legal defence, and until those normal processes of the law have been gone through, I do not judge a person guilty, nor should the hon. member for Heilbron. For those reasons the Side Bar has already, as I said, fallen under the intimidatory influence of past legislation we have had, and this is also happening to some extent, though to a lesser extent, to the Bar of this country. I owe the hon. member for Waterkloof an apology. I mentioned his name when I meant the hon. member for Potchefstroom, in the Committee stage, and I have corrected that in the Hansard. It was the hon. member for Potchefstroom who told this House quite shamelessly … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member an opportunity to make a speech. It becomes impossible for her to speak if a half-dozen hon. members continually interject.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom quite shamelessly told us earlier that he, for one, would never take a case involving a political offence. He is a member of the legal profession and he still does not understand the basic principles of his profession. He says that irrespective of the circumstances of the case, he is not prepared to defend anyone charged with a political offence. That can mean only one thing, that the hon. member himself decides whether a person is guilty of an offence, even before that person is charged in a court of law. All this is part of the pattern of legislation we have had in this country from 1950 onwards, whereby Ministers decide who is guilty and who is not guilty of offences, and more particularly in regard to political offences. I want to inform the hon. member for Potchefstroom that I have absolute proof that a large number of people charged with political crimes are not guilty. I have absolute proof and I will produce that proof here and now, and perhaps next time he is asked to take a political case he may not be quite so frightened and might decide that he will uphold the normal concepts of his profession and defend a person accused of a political offence. My proof is this, that in the three years. 1963, 1964 and 1965, of the 4,205 people who were arrested under the security laws, 1,334 were released without any trial whatever, and of those brought to trial, 665 were found not guilty and discharged.

What is wrong with that? Many people are charged with theft and are found not guilty.

Yes, but the hon. member for Potchefstroom did not make the statement that he would never defend anybody charged with theft.

I said I would not defend a Communist.

He made the categorical statement that he would never defend anyone accused of a political offence. I am proving to the hon. member that 665 of the cases which he would not touch with a barge pole were in fact those of people who were discharged by the courts and found not guilty. I say that he is infected with the disease of fear that has permeated this country’s legal profession simply because of Bills of this nature having been passed, and this is another such Bill. It will intimidate members of a noble profession from taking on cases which it is their normal duty to take on.

It is not only going to stop existing members of the legal profession from taking part in slightly tainted political action—tainted in the eyes of the Government; anything that is multi-racial, by its own nature is already tainted …

Order! The hon. member is wandering very far from the Bill.

What I am saying, Sir, is that clause 2 is not only going to stop people who are already members of the profession from taking part in political activities, but also law students and I think that is a very serious thing indeed.

Another argument which was used and which certainly did not have any effect on my thinking on this Bill, was this argument: Why should this House not lay down disqualifications for the Bar and the Side Bar? The Minister nods because he used that argument himself. He said, in effect, “This House lays down the qualifications which a person must have in order to be able to practise law; why should this House not lay down the qualifications or conditions which bar a person from practising law?” Sir, that is a very strange argument indeed.

We have passed laws governing membership of Parliament.

That is quite a different thing. The qualifications laid down normally for the legal profession are the actual standards of education and training which persons must have before they can be considered to have attained the necessary professional standard.

And character.

And who is the best judge of that?

I do not know who judges character.

Who judges character—the Minister or the courts?

Let me use the analogy of another noble profession, the medical profession. This House lays down the qualifications which a person wishing to practise must attain before he can be registered. Those qualifications are laid down after the Medical Council has made its recommendations as to the standards to be achieved and the subjects that have to be studied. Thereafter that is embodied in statute. In other words, this House lays down the qualifications. But under no circumstances has this House taken it upon itself to decide when a doctor’s name should be struck off the medical register. It is left to the Medical Council to decide that.

Does this House not decide under what conditions people are disqualified from becoming members of Parliament?

I think that was absolutely wrong too, because members of Parliament, in a democratic country, should be elected by the people, and they should have freedom in electing the person of their choice. I must say that I am pretty shocked sometimes when I see what freedom of choice leads to … However, if I may get back to my analogy, it is only the Medical Council that can strike a doctor’s name off the medical register. The courts only enter into the picture as courts of review if the person who has been struck off the register applies to court for review; otherwise it is not this House which lays down under what conditions a person shall be disqualified to practise medicine.

An advocate is an officer of the court.

That is all the more reason why it should be the court that should decide when it shall dispense with the valuable assistance of any officer of the court. I do not believe that it should be this House at all that decides when a person is disqualified from practising law; that decision should be made by the bodies concerned, that is to say, the profession concerned acting in conjunction with the courts of law. That has always been the case and I believe that should be the case in future.

Sir, my other objections I have already raised at the second reading stage and at the committee stage, and I simply wish to say once again that I most strongly object to this Bill.

In the first place I just want to thank the hon. member for Houghton for the apology she has offered me, but I just want to tell her that she should try to avoid such little mistakes in future.

Mr. Speaker, it is not true, as she represented to the House, that it is the Minister who can decide who may or may not be admitted as an advocate of the Supreme Court. That remains the privilege and the prerogative of the Supreme Court of South Africa. All that is happening now is that the Minister, the House of Assembly and Parliament are making a law to say that a certain type of person, in general, is not a fit and proper person to be allowed to practise as an advocate of the Supreme Court. It is quite simply a prohibition which is being placed on the admission of a certain type of person.

During the Second Reading debate the hon. member made a great fuss about the supposed fear among members of the Bar and the Side Bar—she called it “intimidation”—of defending persons in cases with a political background. To-day she watered down her allegation slightly; to-day she merely spoke about “reluctance”. But up to this moment the hon. member for Houghton has not given the House one example of a person who either fears intimidation or who has been intimidated. In this regard she only referred to my colleague, the hon. member for Potchefstroom, but I want to tell her that she is taking the sentiments of the hon. member for Potchefstroom completely out of their context. I do not think the sentiments she tried to ascribe to him are in fact the sentiments that he entertains.

The hon. member for Musgrave expressed his dissatisfaction with the statement of an attorney on this side of the House. Mr. Speaker I want to express much greater dissatisfaction with statements made here by an hon. member on that side, the hon. attorney from the Transkei. Once again the hon. member started beating the drum of the correspondence between our methods and the methods employed in Nazi Germany. Hon. members on that side refer continually in debates to some supposed correspondence between certain legislation in this country and legislation in Nazi Germany’s references which they know will only harm South Africa before the world, and which merely bring discredit on their Party.

Are they true or untrue?

They have been making these allegations since 1948, and all they get in return is that the electorate rejects them time and again with increasing contempt.

They did that in Germany too, and what happened?

There the hon. member is talking about Germany again. In a world as hostile as the one in which we live at present, a responsible Opposition should not try to bring its country into disrepute by continually comparing its Government’s methods to those of Nazi Germany. It is a disgrace. But I want to say this to the hon. member for Transkei, who is making interjections from someone else’s bench …

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member has had her turn and I protected her. I must protect the other speakers as well.

The hon. member for Transkei and his colleagues, who keep referring to Nazi Germany, are repudiating their Leader’s continual plea for a bi-partisan policy to the outside. By doing so the hon. member is blackening South Africa’s name and misrepresenting the administration of justice of South Africa abroad. He knows that no Nazi methods are employed in the administration of justice in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! How many speeches has the hon. member for Transkei made this afternoon?

I just want to tell the hon. member for Transkei that his habit of continually comparing our Government to Nazi Germany is a method which is very typical of communist strategy in the world. If they want to bring a specific government into disfavour they label it with Nazism and Fascism.

I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that we are just as jealous of the standing of our administration of justice and of the judicature in South Africa as they consider themselves to be. We are proud of that, and we are particularly jealous of the high standing our judiciary enjoys in South Africa. The speeches that they pretend to be making in defence of that judiciary do not contribute towards enhancing or improving that standing in any way, in South Africa or abroad. That is why we on this side of the House are doing everything in our ability to uphold the standing, respect and prestige of the administration of justice in South Africa. For that we need judges as unimpeachable as those we have at present and have always had, and in order to get such judges we need an advocacy which is strong and sound, because that is where those judges come from. To have such an advocacy that advocacy should enjoy the confidence of the people. I may tell the hon. member for Transkei that one cannot gain the confidence of the people if the advocacy is riddled with communists.

In my view this legislation is an instrument with which our courts may root communists out of the legal profession, because our judges and magistrates, as administrators of Justice, are all bound by the rules of evidence and by the rules of the law of procedure. And in fact they adhere to those. We can by no means properly root the communist out of our legal fraternity by means of those rules of the law of procedure and evidence and by means of the ordinary tests and ordinary legal principles. One can in fact do that if one has a homogeneous community, because then the ordinary legal principles are adequate to eliminate those offenders against the rules. But not in the case of communists. That is why the Minister now needs all these powers to pin down Communism. That is all. This Act is an instrument which will enable our judiciary to come to grips with the communists which we cannot do through the ordinary legal procedure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has said something for which I have not heard any proof in the course of our long debates on this Bill. He says that this Bill is necessary to enable the hon. the Minister to do something which the ordinary law does not allow us to do. What does he mean by the ordinary law? What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with the fact or otherwise, as to whether a person is a fit and proper person to practise the legal profession. Let me say to the hon. member that he must appreciate as an advocate which he is …

The ordinary rules.

The hon. member says the ordinary rules. As an advocate he appreciates what the ordinary rules are. Surely he appreciates that if there is one thing which protects the individual in any field in this country from the power of the autocracy, of the bureaucracy of the State, it is the courts, because he is at all times protected by an institution which will examine the facts and the law and determine whether his rights have or have not been infringed. The hon. member earned his living from a practice in the courts. He earned his living by dealing with those principles which maintain our courts. He should know better than anyone else on that side what it means, what the function of a court is and what a fact is.

You cannot be serious.

The hon. member for Potchefstroom says that I cannot be serious, I can never be more serious with anyone than I am with the hon. member for Potchefstroom. The hon. member must recall what the hon. member for Waterkloof has just said to him. What he has just said to him is that his views as to the sort of person he would defend are not exactly the views of the hon. member for Waterkloof. The hon. member for Waterkloof as a member of the Pretoria Bar has some standards of ethical behaviour in his profession which are apparently a little higher than those of the hon. member for Potchefstroom.

Come to the Bill.

What are we dealing with in this Bill? We are dealing with the rights of the individuals of South Africa against the bureaucratic display and exercise of power against the individual and against the right of the Minister solely advised by his department, by his security police and by his files, to decide whether a man shall earn his living at his profession or not. That is one of the things with which we are dealing in this Bill. But this Bill has a long history. It is a hangover from the days when the hon. the Minister’s predecessor introduced it. He introduced it some three or four sessions ago and at every session it was dropped because it was not necessary to continue with it. Those were the days when that hon. gentleman was being tough. This Bill has now to be gone through with by his successor because it was considered necessary by his predecessor. But when the hon. the Minister introduced the Bill, he disclosed to this House that in fact there were, as far as one could judge from his reply, no advocates or attorneys who would be affected by it because they were all in goal or had fled the country. Apart from Mr. I. C. Meer who practised at Verulam, there was apparently no one else. So the hon. the Minister felt that he had to proceed with the Bill at this stage. One can only conclude that the purpose of this Bill is not to deal with an immediate danger to this country from Communism, but to inhibit the proper performance of the duties of the members of the legal profession. Why else must this legislation be brought in now if there are no persons affected by it except one I. C. Meer, who I believe is a listed communist, and is subject to restrictions which do not allow him to leave the magisterial district of Verulam. This Government has never liked a strong, healthy judiciary.

That has got nothing to do with this Bill.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with this Bill.

Order!

One recalls the days of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor and the sort of attitude that was adopted by this Government through him as to the judiciary. He wanted magistrates to be appointed to the Bench. He wanted to give silk to magistrates.

When did this happen?

This happened before the hon. member came here.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

The hon. member for Transkei said that there were certain lawyers who might as a result of this legislation be inhibited from properly performing their duties. The hon. member for Transkei was completely borne out by the hon. member for Potchefstroom. He said that he would not touch one of these cases with a barge pole. Why not, Sir? Because he feels that he may be tainted with his client’s interests.

There are many attorneys who will not touch criminal cases at all.

Well, some of us can touch criminal cases and some of us cannot. That was not his point. He will defend a thief or a murderer if he was allowed to. Thank goodness the law does not allow him to defend a murderer. The hon. member for Heilbron says that is nonsense, but it is perfectly true. Why else would he not defend such a person? When the hon. member for Houghton was speaking, he said: No, what I meant was that I would not defend a communist. What is a communist? Is it someone the Special Branch has said is a communist? Is it someone the Minister has put his stamp on when the file comes into his office, or is he a person who is in fact a communist?

If you read the Act you would know.

I do know. You see, Sir, here is the confusion. The hon. member for Prinshof says I must read the Act and I will know. He says that if I read the Act we are now amending, I will see a marvellous definition of a communist. It may or may not be a very good definition of a communist, but that definition tells me what a communist is. What the hon. member forgets, and he should not really forget because he is an advocate, is that, having that definition, what is required is to know who is a communist, not what Communism is. We know what Communism is. We know that Communism is a totalitarian form of government espousing a certain philosophy. We know that. What we want to know is: Who is a communist? Does the Act tell me who a communist is? The Act we are amending here does not tell me who a communist is. All the Act says is that the Minister may say who is a communist and there is nothing that a person can do to gainsay that he is in fact a communist. That is not what we are dealing with. [Interjections.] When one appreciates that one is dealing here with the legal profession, one appreciates that one is fiddling—I cannot use any other word—with an institution which is centuries old in this country, an institution of which we can always be proud. When one goes away from this country there are two things one can always hold out to the world as being the best in this world.

The Nationalist Party.

The one is our Bench and the other is not the Nationalist Party. The other one is Onderstepoort. These are two great things one can talk about. Not the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Minister must appreciate that this must inhibit the proper performance of an advocate or an attorney in his duties. This is really the difference between us. This is really what we are fighting about. Up to now the court has decided what members of the legal profession shall practise and what members shall not. They have decided this upon certain bases, certain grounds. A person may be struck off and on certain grounds he may be allowed to practise. This is so important, because in performing his duty, an advocate knows what the ethics are. He knows what he should do. Far from what has been said by the hon. gentleman behind me, it is his bounden duty fearlessly to take any case which is given to him and to take any instruction that he is given, unless there are special personal reasons, and fearlessly to defend that person in our courts. That is his duty. Now what happens to his duty? In the past he performed his duty fearlessly because the judge of his cause and the judge of the performance of his duty was the court. The court knows how its officers should behave much better than this hon. Minister does, much better than the Security Police do and much better than any official in the Department of Justice does. The court knows how its officers should behave and when they misbehave or behave improperly. That is what is at stake here. What is the test if this Bill goes through in its present form? What will happen when we pass this Bill? On what basis will he defend his client and on what basis will he conduct himself in his profession? What test is to be applied? Is the test that the hon. the Minister might act on a report received from the Security Branch about some lawyer? [Interjection.] He might. The hon. the Minister must not pretend to this House that he does not act on the information that he gets from the files that are put before him. Of course he does. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he ever query those files? Does he ever call for the evidence and say: I want to examine this. If he does, will the hon. the Minister as a lawyer tell me how he does it? How does he know what there is on the other side? Does he ask the other side to put their views forward? Does he then, as a Judge would, when he is presiding in a case where there is an undefended accused, take the part of the accused and on the basis of his story cross-examine that person? Of course, he does not. Nor have any of his predecessors before him, nor will he in the future. It is quite impossible for him to do so.

You are mixed up.

No, I am not all mixed up. When the hon. the Minister introduced this Bill at the Second Reading, he said something I think he should withdraw. He said what his predecessor said before him, namely that if you look at these people who are charged and who they get to defend them, they always get their own kind to defend them. That is a shameful thing to say. It is a terrible reflection upon the legal profession. It is a reflection of this Minister’s attitude to the persons who defend the people who are charged with these offences. Does that attitude not justify exactly what has been said here by the hon. member for Transkei? That is why the hon. member for Potchefstroom will not defend them. How can the hon. the Minister say a thing like that and then expect us to believe that this Bill is not going to inhibit the proper performance of their duty by advocates? I hope the hon. the Minister will retract that statement. It is not worthy of him and it is not worthy of the legal profession, nor do the members of the legal profession deserve it. Here we are with only one person on the roll who is affected, and the Government is acting on a frightened or a hostile impulse to do something suddenly. Why do we not look at the whole question as to what we are dealing with, what we are trying to do and what we are trying to stamp out?

The hon. member for Musgrave dealt with what I thought was something basic to the whole Bill. The hon. member for Omaruru in this debate tried to make out the case that in fact the listed persons, whom, you will recall, the hon. the Minister never mentioned when he introduced this Bill, could go to court. The facts are quite different. The facts of the matter are that as the Act was originally framed, that person could go to court on certain grounds. In 1953 we had the case of Tefu against the Minister of Justice and another. What was said—this was about the original Act which was passed in 1950—in that case, which was reported in S.A.L.R. 1953 (2) at page 73 was—

—so said the learned Judge, Judge Rumpff—

Following upon this there was passed by this Parliament section 8bis which said that the onus of proof is upon the person whose name is on the list if he wants to go to court and have it removed. The onus of proof is on him. In other words, we wanted to confirm apparently what the learned Judge said when he said that it would be impossible for the person concerned to do so if he was not entitled to have the material, and so the onus was placed on him so as to make it impossible for him. Now the position is that which is reflected in Gool’s case which has been referred to, where at p. 688 the learned Judge said—

That refers to a case where there is a statutory provision. That is what the position is to-day after the amendment of 8bis. It is no use pretending that the court can come to their relief. Because, Sir, the court cannot come to their relief unless they can prove mala fides. And how does one prove mala fides? One does not prove mala fides. One can never prove mala fides in those circumstances.

Therefore, Sir, I think that basically we have to come back to this. It is not a question of Communism or whether we on this side are against Communism. We are obviously against Communism.

It does not look like it.

The Minister says it does not look like it. What a scandalous thing to say. What a shocking, scandalous thing for a Minister of Justice to say about hon. gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. What an insult, what an impertinence, from a Minister of a party which has espoused for all this time totalitarian authority. What is Communism if it is not totalitarianism with a philosophical content?

Why did you not fight it?

Why did we not fight it? We have always fought totalitarianism. [Interjections.] This hon. the Minister and that hon. member will know better than anyone else in this House that the United Party has always fought totalitarianism. This Minister will remember the dictum that was put out by the United Party Prime Minister of the time, namely that persons who are members of authoritarian organizations should retire from the civil service. The Minister should know this.

Why do you not use the word Communism?

Because that was not the philosophy that was espoused by these totalitarian organizations. What are we trying to destroy when we destroy Communism?

Order! The hon. member is drifting too far away from the Bill now.

I will come back to the Bill, Sir, and come straight back to the court and say what I have said before, namely that the courts are what distinguish a totalitarian society from a democratic society. If we have so little faith in our courts that we can interfere with our courts and we are not even prepared to allow them to choose their own officers in the exercise of their duties, then we have come to a very sorry pass.

Basically the difference between our attitudes here is the difference between the amendment which stands on the Order Paper as to how we should deal with communists, how we should deal with lawyers who have been convicted of offences under the Suppression of Communism Act, or who are listed communists. The contents of our amendment and the attitude reflected in the Bill is the difference between this side of the House and that side.

I want to say sincerely to the Minister that we have not yet heard from him why it is that he cannot put the facts before the court. Why is it that his file on which he is going to act cannot be examined by a Judge of the Supreme Court in the way in which all evidence is examined? We have not had an answer yet to that. The suspicion that arises immediately is that the facts which he has do not and will not stand up to the examination that any other evidence is subjected to by a court. This is the inescapable inference, that one has when the Minister will not accept our amendment to have the courts decide on any information that he wants to put before them.

That, I think, is the gravamen of the allegation against this Minister and against this Bill. It does not do credit to the Minister to refuse the amendment. The Bill does no credit to our legal profession, and it does no credit whatever to our country. And it does nothing to strengthen the institutions which one would think one would want to strengthen if one really wanted to fight such a thing as Communism.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has really given us a lovely treat this afternoon. At one point he even reached a dramatic climax, in the attack he launched on the hon. the Minister. Do you know, Sir, at that moment the hon. member reminded me of a classic English quotation from Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Here we have seen the hon. members of the Opposition do everything in their ability to steer clear of this measure. That is proved by the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, had to admonish each of the speakers on the opposite side time and again to return to the subject under discussion. They are as scared of this measure as the devil is of holy water. They are so scared of it because they do not want to take a stand on it, but they must realize that they will have to render account to the public as well, and not only here.

Before making certain submissions to the House, I should like to bring it to the attention of hon. members that hon. members on the opposite side, in their despair and inability to devise arguments, are using this opportunity to cast certain aspersions on one of my colleagues, a person who does not have an opportunity to speak. I am referring to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. Now I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that we in the legal profession are surely entitled to select our clients. We need not accept every client. Our ethics forbid us to accept certain kinds of work on which we are not authorities. If an attorney in the Cape rural areas who perhaps knows little about mineral rights and prospecting contracts, from the nature of his practice, is asked to draw up a notarial prospecting contract, he must decline in all honesty to accept the instruction because the work does not come within his professional ambit. If I come up against certain types of criminal work I am entitled to say that I do not work in that field. On the other hand many attorneys will say that they do work on estates and deeds, while their partners do the court work. I want to assure the hon. member for Durban (North) and also the hon. member for Houghton, who has now very conveniently left, that I am prepared to perform my work as a court officer at all times, but there is one thing I am not prepared to do, and that is that I shall never be prepared to defend before the people the attitudes adopted here in the political field by those hon. members. Thank heavens that my ethical code does not compel me to do that!

Throughout this debate the hon. member for Durban (North), in particular, pretended to be the great champion defending the courts of South Africa. Who has attacked them? Nobody has attacked the courts of this country. He wreathed himself in fig leaves and then stripped them off himself, and in the final moment of his speech he stood before us in his political nakedness. He told us that the courts knew what they were doing. Just now I shall demonstrate that there were occasions when the courts did not know. The hon. member levelled the reproach against the Minister: Why are you introducing this legislation, why do you say there is only men on the list who can possibly be affected? But only last year it was their slogan that we should take precautions. Now we are taking precautions to prevent the legal profession, which means so much to us, from being abused as it has been abused.

Now I should like to approach this matter on another level, and as we are dealing with the Third Reading we have to measure this legislation by effect, and in particular I want to examine that effect in respect of the principle of the Act which drew the main attack, namely clause 2, which relates to the admission of legal practitioners; and then I want to do so with reference to its four basic aspects, the four basic spheres in respect of which it has an effect. That is, firstly, in respect of the legal practitioner, secondly in respect of the discretion of the courts, thirdly in respect of the law societies, and fourthly in respect of its political effect.

In the first place I shall deal with the legal practitioners. The hon. member for Durban (North) made much ado of the fact that there would supposedly be intimidation and that those people would be prevented from doing their work. Sir, I want to give you the assurance that this Act will not prevent me from doing my work, and that no law-abiding and decent member of the profession would ever have to fear intimidation. How many times have members of our profession, and even members present here at the moment, not become involved in cases against the Government, and instituted actions against Government Departments, for damages, etc.? I want to point out that the practitioner loses nothing through the effect of the Act on him. He applies for admission and the court has to decide about certain things, and if he feels aggrieved, an appeal is open to him. He may appeal, and if they struck him off the roll and he wanted to dispute the statements of the Secretary for Justice, he could dispute them in court. He could even go to the Appeal Court. No, no decent and law-abiding practitioner who is faithful to his oath of allegiance, which he took when he was admitted to the profession, could ever feel that he is being hampered. For him who has slipped up and who regrets it, special provision has now been made, to enable him to return to the fold of the just.

But secondly we come to the effect in respect of the courts. What does the Opposition tell us in that amendment which was not accepted? The hon. member for Transkei quoted it. I wanted to correct him, but he would not allow me to do so. The amendment which set out their attitude in respect of the legislation provides that the court in considering applications may “regard such convictions as being grounds”. It may; it need not. Now I want to make the statement that the jurisdiction of the court, the discretion of the court, is not being limited. On the contrary, it is being expanded, and I want to prove that.

I want to submit that if in the past the court had the discretion to consider that, it frequently did not have the opportunity to exercise that discretion. The hon. member for Houghton objected: Why prescribe these qualifications? I want to refer the hon. member to the Admission of Attorneys Act. Section 9 states that “attorneys practising in certain countries or territories may be admitted to practise in the Republic”. That is only one example. It reads, “upon satisfying the Court”, and then it is not merely asked whether one is “a fit and proper person” and whether one has passed one’s examinations. No, it is said that he should satisfy the court “that he has been admitted and that he is resident and practising” in a certain place, and if we consider the other requirement for admission, then it does not relate to examination requirements only. For example, when a notary is admitted he has to produce proof that he is a South African subject. Therefore the discretion of the courts is not being abrogated; it is being expanded. What has the history of the past years proved? There have been oblique references by the Opposition to a certain case, and they left it at that. In the case of Incorporated Law Society of Transvaal vs. Mandela (S.A.L.R., 1954, p. 102) we see the judgment, and do you know what happened there? In that particular case the Law Society went to court with a petition for the removal of Mandela from the roll of attorneys on the grounds that he had committed one of the offences mentioned here in the Act, those under section 11 (b), and that he had been convicted of that offence. Do you know what the Court found?

On page 108 of his summary the judge said— and two judges concurred—

Then he continues, on page 109—

What do hon. members of the Opposition do? They draw up an amendment which provides that in considering such cases the court may regard such conviction as being grounds for removal. In this case the court considered that and found that it did not constitute grounds for the removal of a person’s name. The court gave full consideration to the matter and the court found that a conviction on one of these offences did not constitute grounds for removing a person’s name from the roll. It did not say that it was not entitled to consider that; it simply adopted the attitude that it did not constitute grounds. It adopted the attitude that the man had been punished by the courts once and that it was not going to punish him again.

We now come to the discretion which hon. members of the Opposition want to give the courts through their amendment: “The court in considering such application may regard such convictions … as being grounds.”

What did the Cape court say?

If that hon. member knows so much about the Mathews case, why did he not quote the judgment in full? My time is limited, and if the hon. member wants to take lessons from me I do not blame him, but I do not have enough time available now to spend it on training him.

The court has to judge on the basis of the ex parte documents of the application before it. As matters stand at present, if upon an application for admission someone brings it to the attention of the court that the applicant has been convicted of one of these offences or that he is a listed communist, the court cannot take cognizance of that. In this case a law society made a move and bumped its head. What is left now? Sir, the hon. member for Durban (North) has a great deal to say about “fit and proper persons”. To-day he used those words in virtually every second sentence. The court found that Mandela had been convicted on a charge under the Suppression of Communism Act; that he had furthered the communistic doctrine; that by doing so he had not violated his oath of allegiance to his country; that he had done nothing dishonourable and that he could still remain “within the ranks of this honourable profession”.

What about Krause?

If hon. members wanted to quote a string of court cases here, they could have done so in the course of their own arguments; I am now arguing the point I am submitting to them, but as usual we are now dealing with people who run away. Once again I want to quote an English expression to them: “He who fights and runs away, lives to fight another day”. But that is not true in politics. One does not get a second chance.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation before us offers the courts not only the opportunity but the instruction and the prescription that it is part of their task to exercise their discretion to determine whether a man has been convicted on one of these offences and whether he is a listed communist. The discretion which they either would not or could not exercise or which they did not have the opportunity to exercise, must now be exercised by them. We are expanding the field of discretion; we are not imposing a restriction on the courts. The Secretary for Justice or the applicant will still have to convince the court. The discretion is there; it must merely be exercised. I have already put it to you that in terms of the Admission of Attorneys Act, as we have it at present, the applicant or the law society, depending on the circumstances, must satisfy the court as to the question of qualification. Similarly, the court now has the discretion to come to a decision on disqualification. Whether or not a person has been convicted is a fact. Hon. members on the opposite side said that the courts consider the facts. Very well, this is a fact. The courts have to ascertain whether the fact is true, and then they have to enforce the Act.

Thirdly, I now come to the effect of this legislation in respect of the law societies of South Africa. In the Second Reading Debate I made the statement that the Association of Law Societies were not opposed to this legislation, and the hon. member for Durban (North) then asked me where that was recorded. I told him that it had in fact been recorded, but that I did not have the documents at hand. I shall now read to him a resolution which was recorded in the newspapers of the South African Press. Last year, from 31st January to 2nd February, the central executive of the Association of Law Societies met in Cape Town, and after that meeting they issued a Press statement. I quote from a report which appeared in Die Burger of 3rd February (translation)—

As member of a committee of a Law Society I may testify that our secretaries, some of whom are honorary secretaries, do not want to be burdened with keeping a register and with the detective work of determining periodically who has been listed and who has been convicted. It was a fair and reasonable request and the hon. the Minister granted it. What the Law Societies of South Africa asked for, they got. That is the effect as far as they are concerned. As I have said, the onus does not now rest on the secretary of the Law Society to go and find out; the onus rests on the applicant to satisfy the court that he has not been listed or convicted. The onus rests on the Secretary for Justice to satisfy the court that the man for whose removal from the roll he is applying is in fact guilty of these offences.

I now come to the fourth and indirectly perhaps the most important effect of this legislation, and that is its effect in the political field. Mr. Speaker, this House, the electorate of this country and the enemies of this nation know what attitude we adopt. The struggle in which we are engaged in this House to-day, the struggle against undesirable elements in this House to-day, the struggle against undesirable elements in the legal profession, the struggle against criminals who present a threat to good order and the legal order in South Africa, is a struggle which did not start to-day. Nor is it a struggle which will be resolved to-day; it is a struggle which goes on and the legislation before this House is only one more beacon planted on the road of that struggle. We shall gain very little if we, like hon. members of the Opposition, protest vehemently that we oppose Communism and that we despise it, unless we are prepared to take any effective steps to combat it. This legislation is once again proof to all whom it concerns that this Government is determined to restrict and destroy Communism, and that it is determined that its policy shall be implemented effectively. That is the keyword. The Government is determined that its fight shall be effective, and that it shall not be mere words. We cannot take half-baked measures. We are not dealing with people who take half-baked action against us. They are determined and sly. We have had abundant proof here of how they will abuse the legal profession and how they abused it when the opportunity presented itself. Therefore, as far as the effect on the political field is concerned, these are the criteria. As far as the Opposition is concerned, it seems to me the position is the following. After the Association of Law Societies issued that statement, there was a vehement attack on the legal profession in South Africa by Nusas on 10th February. I shall now read a report on that attack by Mr. Ian Robertson. I do not think the hon. member for Houghton is unacquainted with that gentleman (translation)—

He went on along those lines. Strangely enough, when this statement appeared certain members of the Law Societies—fortunately not mine—and other people took fright. They became scared. This attack was made and then they took heed of it. Then we saw what we did in fact see on this occasion. Would the Opposition perpetuate a state of affairs whereby there may be more Mandela judgments? Their amendment did not obviate that, because the court would still have been able to do that. They want to perpetuate the tradition of the Mandela judgment in our judicature in South Africa. Is that what they want to do in this debate to-day, by their opposition against this legislation? Are the hon. members refusing to face up to their responsibility to the legal profession, to the courts of which they have so much to say, and to the public? We are prepared to accept our responsibility to the courts and the legal profession and to the voters and the public of South Africa.

Very brave.

We are prepared to do so despite the mutterings of the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know what she is saying, but the way things are going now I just want to tell her that although we have had terribly hot weather the past few days, that is really no excuse for the hon. member for Houghton to behave like a cicada.

In our legislation in respect of the legal profession it is regarded as one of the greatest crimes an attorney can commit if he embezzles the money of his clients. He is struck from the roll and he loses all privileges. But here we have people who through their actions showed that they were prepared to embezzle the future of South Africa. Yet in the Mandela case the courts were not prepared to take action and it has therefore become time for this sovereign House to make its will and the will of the people known. Now is the time for the Opposition to decide, because they have a choice when we vote on this Bill. They may choose whether they are going to obey the will of the people, whether they are going to thwart it further and whether they are going to pay heed to the instructions of Nusas. If they vote the way we suspect they will, then we shall know they have paid heed to the instructions of Nusas.

Mr. Speaker, after this discussion, which has been in progress for quite a number of days now, I still find that the hon. member for Houghton is as unconvinced as she was at the outset. I have said before that as far as that hon. member is concerned I give up the struggle. She is past redemption. What I will still try and do later is deal with the points which she raised when I come to the separate clauses. As for the official Opposition, I find that they are still trying to hide behind the courts. Unfortunately, while they are doing so, so much of their posterior is jutting out that not even these newspapers which usually take them under their protection, have done so this time. That I can quite understand, because what did the hon. members do? The hon. members pleaded for it to be made possible—mark my words—I say made possible for the following persons to be able to practise: (a) a listed communist and (b) a person who, while residing or having resided within or outside the Republic, advocated, advised, defended or encouraged outside the Republic and with the aid of a foreign government or overseas organization violent action, a change in the political, industrial, social or economic pattern within the Republic or any of the objects of Communism. That is the one. The other person is one who, while residing or having resided within or outside the Republic, received training within or outside the Republic, or agreed to receive such training, or encouraged or persuaded someone else to undergo such training, or of having obtained information which could have been of use for the achievement of the objects of Communism or of an illegal organization. That is what these hon. members have pleaded for. We cannot get away from that and consequently I say that for that very good reason the newspapers which usually take them under their protection did not even do so. I just want to draw attention to the fact that while this discussion lasted the best part of a week I did not receive one protest from the Bar Council, nor from the Association of Law Societies, nor from the Provincial sections of the Law Societies. I watched the newspapers and I think that with the exception of a single letter I did not notice the slightest protest against this legislation.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Was there not objection from the Bar Councils in regard to this Bill as it was printed when his predecessor was in charge of it?

I dealt with that question during the Second Reading. I said that the Bar Council and the Association of Law Societies were prepared to support this legislation on condition that they were not asked to play any part in the removal. I added that at a later stage they began to back out because they said that the offences which were then being included had not been mentioned in the original discussions.

Nevertheless, after this week-long discussion, I thank all members, the members on that side as well, for the way in which it was possible for the discussion to be held. The hon. member for Durban (North) has now, at the Third Reading stage, become a little excited and has said things which he attributed to me, which is unworthy of him. For the rest the discussion was a very pleasant one and I must honestly say that I found it personally very useful to have the experience of the Opposition stating their standpoint against the Government, as they in fact did, and that they succeeded in hiding behind the courts. I also believe that I was very accommodating. I accepted an amendment without the hon. member for Transkei even having to move it. He merely drew my attention to a loophole and I formulated the amendment and moved it myself. I was prepared to accept another amendment if he had moved it. If it had not been for the fact that the hon. member for Houghton had warned him to be careful he would have done so. The other amendments moved by hon. members were without exception ruled out of order by the Chair because they ran counter to the principles of the legislation. If they had moved acceptable amendments I could perhaps have accepted more of them, but I cannot accept amendments which have been ruled out of order by the Chair.

I want to refer briefly to the remarks made on the various clauses. In the first instance I want to refer to clause 1. The hon. member for Houghton was terribly upset about the fact that this clause is retrospective. I acknowledged that she was right. To a certain extent it does have retrospective effect, in this respect: What is to-day still an innocent or a lawful organization, may to-morrow certainly be declared an unlawful organization. When that happens I can in terms of this clause prohibit its office-bearers from becoming members of whatever other organizations I may mention. To confine ourselves now to the amendment which I introduced, namely paragraphs (b) and (c) which prohibits persons from making or receiving a contribution of any nature to the direct or indirect advantage of or to participate in any way in any activity, that does not have retrospective effect. I may do so in future. Over and above the notice which has already to be made to cover other parts of this clause I shall have to issue a notice whenever I want to prohibit organizations from committing one of these two offences. In that respect it is not retrospective. It is one of the cases where both people can be right. To a certain extent the hon. member was right, and the hon. members for Prinshof and Omaruru were also both right.

It was clause 2 which was discussed the most. When I referred to it in my Second Reading speech I was asked: What does the opinion of the American Bar Council mean? Was it carried into effect by means of legislation? I do not believe that it was carried into effect by means of legislation. I do not think so. What is of importance is what the American Bar Council’s ideas are and what their line of thought in regard to this kind of thing is. This is how they think about it:

It is significant to see what line of thought is taken in those circles in regard to this matter.

Who shall decide?

That has nothing to do with it. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, arising out of this statement of the hon. the Minister, will he not concede that the difference between this legislation and that which exists in America is that in America there is recourse to the courts in regard to who is or who is not a communist?

I am grateful to the hon. member for asking that question because it is precisely what I want to refer to next. A great deal has been said about having recourse to the courts. Hon. members referred to the Tefu case, but they were very careful not to read out the ruling in that case. I shall now read it for them. In the case Tefu vs. the Minister of Justice and Another, 1953, the ruling reads as follows:

We have already read it.

Hon. members were very careful not to read it precisely. What happened the year after that? The year after that, in 1954 section 8bis was passed in this House. What did section 8bis do? Section 8bis placed the onus of proof on the listed person. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? Furthermore, section 8bis limited the period in which he had the right to have recourse to the court to one year. That is all that happened. Consequently it is not at all a question, as it is clearly indicated here, read together with section 8bis, of there not being full recourse to the courts.

Now to return. Who are the people we want to keep out of the courts? I have told hon. members, and it is indicated in the section, that it is the listed communists or their people who have already been found guilty of four heinous crimes by the court. If hon. members are against Communism, as they have repeatedly assured us they are, then I say that these are four heinous crimes. I have already read two of them to the hon. members and the other two are when a person advocates or openly encourages Communism.

Hon. members have also mentioned intimidation under this clause. Here I must take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban North that he attributed to me words which I never used. At the second reading the hon. member for Houghton said that it was already the case that people charged with this type of offence, i.e. subversion, were experiencing difficulty in finding lawyers to defend them. That was what the hon. member said. I replied to that. I said: No, that is not their difficulty. Their difficulty is that they want a certain type of lawyer. I said further that if they could not obtain that certain type of lawyer, they chose to appear before the courts undefended. That is what I said.

I was referring to what you said when you introduced the Bill.

Order! The hon. member must not make so many interjections.

I repeat what I said on that same occasion. It was with reference to the Defence and Aid Fund, which I unfortunately cannot discuss here now because it is sub judice. On a subsequent occasion I should like to read to hon. members what Judge President Jennett had to say in this regard, namely what a disservice was being done to the legal profession by people who refused to accept the normal kind of legal practitioner and only wanted a certain kind of legal practitioner.

I come next to clause 3. This provision creates the presumption that a person will be deemed to have known that he had come into contact with a listed person or some-one who was under restriction. The hon. member for Houghton raised the point that it was really placing a tremendous onus on such a person, for how was he supposed to know exactly who had been listed and how was he supposed to know exactly who had all been placed under restrictions? The clause was passed before I could reply to her criticism, however, and I should now like to refer to it. When I saw this presumption I myself asked the Department whether a tremendously heavy onus was not being placed on the person who wanted to obey the Act. How was he to know exactly who had all been placed under restriction? I could not expect him to page through all the Government Gazettes published since 1950. I am talking now about somebody who has again been placed under restriction. I cannot expect it of such a person and it would also be unfair to do so. I was then given the assurance and I am now giving this assurance to the House, that any person who is under restriction and is afraid that he will commit this offence and that this presumption against him will be put into effect,, can apply to the Department, and the Department will furnish him with a complete list of restricted persons or references to the relevant Government Gazette in which the names appear. I was also given the further assurance that—and this assurance I am now giving to this House— that list will be brought up to date once every year. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

Will they publish a consolidated list?

Yes, it will be published once every year.

Approximately how many names will appear on the list?

I could not say. The list will appear in the Government Gazette once every year.

There was no objection to clause 4, except that the hon. member for Transkei was upset because we were also including the word “communist” in that clause.

No, that is not true. I moved an amendment. There was even a division on it.

Oh, I was under the impression that the hon. member had objected to the fact that the word “communist” also appeared in it.

With that brief reply I think that I, together with all the hon. members on this side of the House, have covered all the points raised by hon. members on that side, and I now move the Third Reading.

This Bill makes provision for advanced technical education. It is one of three Bills of which we have now had the First Reading and which, we presume, will be debated in the course of this Session. The first intimation we had of the projected presentation of this Bill we received in the speech delivered by the State President when Parliament was opened. Amongst the Bills he announced would be introduced in the course of this Session was—

The hon. the Minister did not explain to us what the words “wat nie oorgeneem word nie” meant. I do not know by whom they are not being taken over but, obviously, certain institutions are going to be taken over. These are the exceptions. However, the hon. the Minister can explain that when the other Bills are introduced.

The hon. the Minister, when he introduced the Second Reading of the Bill we are now dealing with, devoted some time to the background history, and especially to the Vocational Education Act of 1955. Before this Act these four technical colleges enjoyed a measure of autonomy, a very important measure of autonomy. They were developing very well. When the 1955 Act was introduced we, from this side of the House, opposed it strenuously. These institutions were gradually becoming autonomous and gave hope of becoming technological institutes of the future—in other words, the kind of institutes the world is trying to produce to-day. Now, when it was proposed that these institutions were to be taken over by a State Department, we opposed that move and we did so very strenuously. The then Minister stated that such taking over was necessary at the time. But I do not think it was necessary. I think it was a retrogressive step. As I have said, these technical colleges were developing on very sound lines. However, I am not going to press this point because I think the Minister has now returned to the old ways and has now come back to the original policy of these technical colleges. It is true he has not come back very enthusiastically but wiser counsel has now prevailed. The Minister says there are new developments in education. As I see it, there are no new developments. These are still the old developments, only we departed from the old way of developing these institutions as autonomous institutions. But now we are returning to the old way. The Minister seems to think that there was some special reason for taking over the colleges in 1955. I hope I am quoting him correctly, but I think he said: “Die Staat het ’n houvas nodig om te verhoed dat hulle weer in hulle ou wee verval”. In other words, the State required control in order to prevent them returning to their old ways. But I do not think it was the attitude of the 1955 Minister. The hon. Minister at that time, this hon. Minister’s predecessor, did not refer to the technical colleges in those terms. I want to mention one or two things he did say. He said that one of the functions which was being fulfilled by the colleges at that time, i.e. 1955, was the training of managerial personnel and higher qualified technicians. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is what we are trying to do in South Africa to-day. This was a tribute the then Minister paid to these developing technical colleges. He also said the following, and this is a very important quotation—

Well, we were under the impression that the Minister of Education of to-day is allergic to humanism. It is one of the three great dangers of which he told us in a speech last year— Communism, Liberalism and humanism. Yet his predecessor in office said that one of the reasons for taking over the technical colleges was to provide for these humanistic influences. I hope the hon. the Minister will peruse that speech very carefully. There is one other point regarding the 1955 Act I should like to mention before returning to a discussion of the present Bill. Yesterday I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister that another Bill should be laid on the Table for a month before we consider it. When this Act of 1955 was introduced, its First Reading was taken on the 6th May and its Second Reading only on 20th June— in other words, a difference not of a month such as I asked for yesterday, but of six weeks. So we had plenty of time considering that Bill. I should like the hon. the Minister to peruse the debates of those days and see whether he cannot adopt a more reasonable attitude. Because this Bill represents a return to the autonomy in the control of these colleges, we naturally welcome it and we will give that principle our support. Now, the Minister will expect us, of course, to refer to certain clauses which we regard as containing the principle of the Bill.

The first clause is clause 8, which deals with the constitution of these colleges. In regard to any question of autonomy, the important factor is the manner in which the council is constituted. The Minister has said that he will have at least 50 per cent of the members of the council nominated by him. I think that is going too far. If there are 15 members on the council, he will nominate the majority, because he will nominate eight, and other bodies such as industry and the municipalities will nominate the minority. I would ask the Minister not to be hesitant or reluctant in the granting of autonomy to these colleges. He should not be reluctant in granting them that freedom which will let them develop into what we want them to be, technological universities for the future such as are provided for to-day under the Robbins Report in the United Kingdom, and also in Germany. That is the modern development, technological universities. Our universities are all concentrated on the academic side, some less than others, but there is a necessity in South Africa for these technological institutions. I have referred to clause 8. I will suggest an amendment to the Minister so that we can be a little more reasonable in constituting the council.

The next clause I come to is clause 9, which deals with the board of studies. The Minister seems to think that he is now giving the colleges an opportunity to develop a body similar to the senate of a university, but there is nothing new in this clause 9. The original Bill of 1923 provided for a board of studies, and here we have the same provisions. I congratulate the Minister on going back to the old path which was laid down by his predecessors before this Government came into office.

The next clause I wish to refer to is clause 14. I think the Minister makes heavy weather of this question of medium. Surely we in South Africa have now got past that stage. Surely the university council can arrange what medium is suitable for an institution, having regard to its environment and the industries that are there. I do not think we should have the old wrangle of 25 or 50 years ago in regard to medium. I think the Minister in clause 14 has tried to state the necessity for controlling the medium much too rigidly. I think this is an opportunity to grant this autonomy the Minister spoke about. I should like to say in conclusion that we are very glad that he is now trying to make provision for developing the technical colleges which have done some excellent work in the past, that he is granting them autonomy and giving them financial support. If he does that, we on this side of the House will support him. I have not made any special reference to anybody similar to the principals’ committees and other advisory bodies such as the Minister has in his university organization, but the hon. member for Berea, with his background and experience of technical colleges, will be able to supply that deficiency. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

The hon. member who has just sat down, tried to make an issue of a few thoughts which were expressed here, such as the question of humanistic influence which will be such a decisive influence on the technical colleges and the take-over of the high schools, and he said that we labelled it as a dangerous trend. But I want to tell him that it depends on exactly what is understood by a humanistic influence. In politics it has one meaning, but in education it has a totally different meaning, and as an old educationist he ought to realize that. If one talks about the humanistic approach in education, its political concept does not enter into the matter at all. It does concern certain formative subjects by which the human character and personality are formed and in which he is not only formed as a technician, but also as a human being. As a concept it is totally different from the political concept, and the hon. member should not confuse the two.

The second interesting point is that the hon. member apparently supports this Bill because the Minister is returning to the old ways, as he put it. But we support this Bill eagerly, and certainly not as a result of this simple little point. We support this Bill because this thing has become an essential institution in these times in which we are living, and because education in the world is moving in that direction and we must also move in that direction. The question of returning to autonomy is no new factor with us. The hon. member for Kensington also mentioned the question of the council. It is, after all, an atrocious state of affairs if a man has to catch at a straw in order to find some or other form of criticism. The hon. member must remember the old slogan which says: “Take from the past all that is good and fine and build the future thereon.” If we can take something good from the past, we do so eagerly.

This year, 1967, will be known in the future as a turning-point in the history of education in South Africa. I am convinced of that. I am convinced that this Bill, along with the two of which the Minister gave notice recently, will form the basis on which education will develop in the future. But I do not want to talk about laws which are yet to come. I shall confine myself specifically to this Bill which deals with technological and technical education. What was the position of technical education in South Africa during the past few years? Originally it was in the hands of private persons and private bodies, and there were certain State-aided institutions. The State exercised a certain measure of control. This matter was really on a rather loose footing up to a certain date when the State started to put its foot down and started to take action. There were various commissions which dealt with this specific matter and I should like to refer to the Hofmeyr Report and the De Villiers Report, both of which pointed out that, in the interests of the country as a whole, our technical and vocational education should be placed on a much sounder basis.

After that, in 1954, an Act was introduced in terms of which the State took over these technical institutions, and what we have had since 1954 was not, as the hon. member claimed, retrogression because it was a step in the wrong direction; the development was phenomenal. The field that was covered was outstanding and the achievements in this field were such that the entire country could be proud of them. We have now reached the stage where other Acts make provision for the take-over of certain aspects of this education; but we are living in a technological age, and what is the position in respect of technology in other countries? I understand that the hon. member for Berea is an expert in the field of technological education; consequently he is probably aware of the following facts, but I nevertheless want to furnish these particulars in respect of a few countries in Europe. In Germany it is very clear—according to a source 1 consulted—that 30 per cent of the students enrolling at universities for scientific research, for degrees in science, are incapable of obtaining the full-fledged degree eventually. That is why they have an examination in which a process of sifting is applied as early as at the end of the first year. After that first year approximately 30 per cent of the students are barred from pursuing their studies in that particular field. After the first year they are transferred to certain technological institutes where they take diploma courses or go in for some or other branch of technology, and the others are permitted to carry on with full-time research and to develop into fully equipped university graduates and scientists.

The West German State has 18 universities plus 9 technological universities. The ordinary university usually carries out the basic research in order to extend knowledge, and the separate technological universities exist and are considered essential because they have a more practical approach to technical science and technology as such in their whole makeup. At the moment there are 24 universities in Italy. There are all sorts of institutions with various faculties, etc., but there are two purely technological universities specializing and working in this field only, namely the University of Milan and the University of Turin. There are 45 other institutions for higher technical education and research in special technical subjects. There, too, technology as such and technical education are given specific recognition as well as a specific commission; such training forms a fairly large percentage of the education provided in that specific country.

In Switzerland, with a population of 5½ million, one finds the Federal Technological University of Zurich which has 4,498 students and in which only technology and the technical sciences are studied. There is a full-time staff of 2,561 and in addition there are ten associated institutions specializing mainly in undertaking large amounts of contract research work for industries. There is liaison between the university and industry. When a specific industrial problem arises in some or other field, a certain institution is instructed on a contractual basis to carry out specific research with the aid of the State to assist industry and in doing so also the country as a whole. The liaison there is entirely harmonious and very interesting. Apparently the motto there is no education without research and no research without education.

When we come to the Netherlands, we find six full-fledged universities plus two purely technological universities, those of Delft and Eindhoven. At the moment a third technological university is in the process of being established at Enschede. Many students are not quite suitable for university training, and it is being considered at present, especially at the University of Enschede, which is in the process of being established at the moment, that degrees will be conferred here which will not have the full academic value of a full-fledged academic degree but that of a lower degree, which they call a B. degree, which is not necessarily a Bachelor’s degree. A person who is unable to obtain the full academic qualifications will then, just as is the case in Germany, obtain a lower qualification or in this case, a diploma.

The hon. member for Kensington has already referred us to the report in Britain of Professor Lord Robbins’s Committee on Higher Education which was published in September, 1963. In this report it is made very clear that, owing to the practical problems they are experiencing in industry or in science, even scientists and technologists in the industries should be absorbed into education on a part-time basis for the purpose of carrying out research or giving lectures at such institutions. At the moment Britain has 27 universities with 118,800 students, and apart from these 27 universities there are 10 colleges for advanced technological education and 380 technical and commercial colleges. In this country, too, a tremendous amount of attention is given to technology and technical education as such. I am not going to quote figures for every country, but we find the same trend in New Zealand. Australia and France. For the sake of interest I have taken the figures for the United States of America, this country which does everything on a grand scale, in the superlative degree. America has 593 junior university colleges which offer two-year courses, the majority of which are courses in technology. America has 741 universities which provide training up to the Bachelor’s degree level. In addition there are 455 universities which provide training up to the Master’s degree level, and there are 219 full-fledged universities which provide training up to the Doctor’s degree level. America is therefore a country which undertakes this matter on a very large scale.

It is against this background of world development and the value attached to technology and technical education in this age in which we are living that we are looking at the position in South Africa, and it is against this background that I want to welcome this Bill whole-heartedly. With this measure we are now starting to move in the right direction in respect of this important matter, namely technological education. In Dr. Mönnig’s report from which the hon. the Minister quoted in his Second Reading speech—a report which was prepared for the previous Prime Minister; a report on a study of the organizations of science—Dr. Mönnig put it as follows (translation)—

As a result of this statement I tried to gain some information in order to determine what percentage of those students who enroll for the B.Sc. degree with the object of obtaining a degree in science, subsequently drop out along the way, do not pass and then fall back and eventually disappear and are absorbed into the ordinary world of commerce or become salesmen. The knowledge they have acquired in the field of technical science and technology disappears entirely and becomes quite useless. I was unable to obtain the exact figures, but I was able to obtain the percentage of failures of two universities. At one of these universities 28 per cent of the first-year students taking B.Sc. (pure), failed in 1961. In 1962, 16 per cent failed, and in both 1963 and 1964, 30 per cent failed. The percentage was much higher for the degree of B.Sc. (Technology), which embraces engineering, the medical sciences, etc. In 1961, 35 per cent failed the first year; in 1962, 35 per cent; in 1963, 40 per cent, and in 1964, 40 per cent again—a tremendously high percentage of failures in the pure natural sciences in the first year. Some of these students proceed; they repeat their course and they try to go further, but a large number of them leave the university and are eliminated entirely from the process of technical education. Their potential and knowledge are not utilized at all in the field of technology; they may perhaps go into commerce or into another sphere and then we lose them in this particular sphere where we have such a tremendous shortage and such a tremendous need for manpower to give further impetus to our country with its rapidly developing economy and to carry out further research.

At another university I obtained the following figures. At this university there is only a small percentage of students who fail outright. Apparently they have specific concessions. Even if a student passes in only one or two subjects, he is granted permission to proceed to the second year. This university enrolled 208 first-year students in 1966. Only 12 per cent failed outright. A large percentage failed partly, and they had to repeat a number of subjects the next year; to use student language, they had to drag a number of subjects. The number of failures therefore amounted to 5.7 per cent.

Their dalliance is not confined to dragging subjects.

Yes, they dally with more things than only subjects. In the second year there were 269 enrolled students of whom 89 failed—in other words, 36.4 per cent. In the third year there were 149 enrolled students, 42 of whom failed—in other words, 28.1 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, it is because of these failures at universities that I now want to talk specifically about this Bill we have before us. I believe and I want to express the thought here that the closest and finest co-operation and reciprocal co-operation should exist between our universities and these technological colleges for which this Bill is making provision. I am referring specially to students who fail in the first or in the second year and who have made it their choice to qualify themselves in technical sciences and who come up against some or other restriction with the result that they do not succeed eventually. The aptitude and the interest of those students lay in that field in which we need them so badly, and when they find their way blocked after studying a year or two, I feel that they should not be lost to technological education or to the technical sciences as a whole in our country. We must be able to absorb them into these technological colleges by means of reciprocal co-operation. With that academic background, they should immediately be granted recognition in these colleges for one or two years of study, and they should immediately be able to continue their studies for a diploma in engineering or in any other sphere whatever. With this diploma in their possession they should be able, when further research is carried out, to do the routine work so that the really fully qualified engineers may, for instance, devote their attention to the highly specialized work which has to be done there. The person who is not a fully qualified engineer, should be able to apply his technical knowledge in order to bring relief to our tremendous shortage of technicians.

When people attend lectures on a full-time basis at these technological educational institutions and show exceptional aptitude in some or other branch of science, the reciprocal cooperation should be so favourable that those people may be recommended immediately and be given the necessary assistance to go to universities. There he must be enrolled immediately for some or other full-fledged degree such as B.Sc., engineering or any other course, and he must qualify himself fully in that field so that we may have that sound reciprocal cooperation between the two institutions which will benefit the country as a whole. It is against that background that I want to plead instead that we should not proceed to offering an inferior, watered-down or adulterated diploma or course at our universities. I want to ask instead that our universities should maintain their standard, that a man who has a full-fledged university diploma or degree, i.e. a man who is fully qualified, should uphold that standard, and that the man who goes to the technological institution should obtain his diploma there, in order that the difference may be there and that the standard of our universities will be kept in line with that of the rest of the world. These bodies are becoming semi-autonomous bodies. I want to say at once that I welcome the idea that they are semi-autonomous, because I feel that there are still certain interests of the State and the community as a whole which must be served in these institutions. If they want to be made completely autonomous, it may result in these people developing and growing along certain lines which may, in our opinion, be lines along which they ought not to develop.

As in our universities.

The universities are autonomous. As I have said, that is an entirely different standard. [Interjections.] Yes, in my opinion they can eventually become universities or university colleges. If they display a sense of responsibility and develop along the right lines, they can get full autonomy at that stage. I have no objection to that, but I am convinced that I am not in favour of that happening now. Since the State has to subsidize them to a tremendously large extent at present, it cannot simply make over funds on a voluntary basis and yet have no control over the disposal of such money. The whole Act is modelled on the lines of a university with its senate, council, and so forth. That is why we welcome this whole matter as it stands. I want to conclude. I think that we are dealing here with a new development in our education, a new development which brings us in line with the rest of the world, and which will be a practical solution to our shortage of manpower and technicians and which moves in a direction where it is essential. I think we are well placed on the right road. I believe and trust that this new development in the field of technical education will in all respects also be for the good of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Randfontein has been most interesting. I will not pursue his observations on humanism. I listened with interest to his facts and statistics in regard to technological education in other countries. I felt that he had an extremely interesting point when he dealt with the aspect of the failures in the first year of science degrees. What became of these people? What a terrific loss a country experiences as a result of these people dropping out from their studies, having failed their first year. His suggestion that these advanced technical education facilities provided by this Bill may assist these people to find their niche in life in the direction which they originally chose and which they may have been forced to forgo, because of their first failure, is an interesting one. His suggestion that there should be an interchange, and possibly a greater degree of co-operation between university degrees and courses and those of their higher institutions envisaged in this Bill, I believe is something that should be pursued with enthusiasm and vigour, because I believe that both sides of the House are very much aware of the need for technological training in this modem age.

I shall deal with one specific instance a little later in my speech in regard to the aspect to which the hon. member for Randfontein has referred. At this stage, I would like to deal with the background to this Bill, because I believe it is a Bill which enjoys the approval of the governing bodies of the four technical colleges most involved in this particular piece of legislation. I believe it is correct to say that, and I believe that the Bill has been brought about as a result of consultation between these technical colleges and the hon. the Minister and his Department. Agreement has not been reached in every aspect. There have been certain matters which I believe the technical colleges would still like to see included in this Bill, and I wish later to make an appeal on some of those aspects. I believe that the four colleges—those of the Cape, Natal, Pretoria and Witwatersrand—will welcome the return of autonomy, and a greater autonomy, which is offered them under this Bill. No one will deny that the technical colleges have played a very great role in the education of the people in South Africa in the past.

I believe that with the development envisaged in this Bill, the part they have to play in the future will be of even greater importance, because provision is made for expansion. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech referred to the increased status which will now apply to these institutions, leading, he said, in a direction in many respects to a university training. The hon. the Minister also indicated that there were certain courses and classes which he felt did not fit in with the concept of this new Bill, and that other means would be found in order to supply suitable facilities for those courses, and that they would no longer form part of the curriculum of the advanced training institutions. I was most interested in the hon. the Minister’s remarks in regard to the increased status of these training institutions. I listened with interest to his comparison of the Board of Studies to which my hon. colleague has referred and his comparison to the senate of a university. I noticed in his remarks the Minister referred twice specifically to the training of pharmaceutical students. It is to this particular aspect which I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister give very careful and favourable consideration. I address my plea to him on the basis that it is supported by the statutory body of our profession—the Pharmacy Board and also by the representative body— the Pharmaceutical Society, that these colleges which we are discussing in this Bill should become training institutions for a degree in pharmacy offered by the University of South Africa.

The Minister will know that at the moment we have an unfortunate position whereby we have a degree and a diploma, both of which are recognized by the statutory body, the S.A. Pharmacy Board, as being equal. The Minister will be advised shortly, I believe, if he has not already been advised, that both these courses will shortly be extended to four-year full-time academic courses, both the diploma and the degree. Now the problem is that with the diploma, which has been offered through the technical colleges over the years, a form of discrimination has arisen, which penalizes the people who take this diploma course. I know that I would be out of order if I referred to the question of university colleges, and I merely wish in passing to explain and enlarge upon the situation that has developed. We know that at the present moment facilities exist for non-Whites to qualify in pharmacy. They qualify through the university colleges and they take only the degree through the University of South Africa. But what is the position in regard to the White people who enter into the pharmaceutical profession? We find that more than half of these people are taking the diploma course through the technical colleges, a course, Sir, which I must reiterate the Pharmacy Board regards as being the same as the degree course. But these people who take this diploma course through the technical colleges find themselves at the end of the course in an academic cul-de-sac, because when they seek higher education in the field of pharmacy, or any other scientific field, the university will not accept the training recognized by the Pharmacy Board as being equal to the degree course provided in the universities who offer the B.Sc. (Pharm.) course. I feel that I have a friend in the hon. member for Randfontein, because he believes, as I understand, that there should be a greater interchange there. I ask the hon. the Minister very seriously if he could give very sympathetic consideration to the suggestion that there shall be one qualification, and it shall be the degree, but training shall be available through the colleges for advanced technical education. I do so in the knowledge that this request comes wholeheartedly from the whole profession.

I want to come back to the Bill and deal with certain points which have created a little doubt in the minds of members. I would like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in the first place in regard to clause 2 (b). He indicated in the Second Reading that by proclamation he would authorize full-time vocational training classes to continue for a time, and he specifically mentioned the Pretoria and Cape Technical Colleges. I would like the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the same position would apply to Natal and to Wits, should the need be for him to proclaim an extension of full-time vocational training courses.

There is another aspect. I have discussed this with the members of the Department and I welcome the advice given, but I would, for the sake of record, ask the Minister if he would confirm this particular aspect, and that is in regard to this. Take for example a Saturday morning art class which at present is offered by a technical college (one of the four which will now be elevated to this autonomous state), to children between the ages of six and 16 on a part-time basis. I take it that the hon. the Minister will indicate that those facilities will no longer be available through the four technical colleges and that it will be necessary for another venue to be found, for those students to undertake such form of study.

I want to refer to clause 8, which deals with the composition of the council. The hon. member for Kensington has referred to the fact that originally the composition of the council was established by Act 30 of 1923. It seems from my research that there have been a few very minor amendments in this particular section over all those years. The original Act laid down that the Minister could appoint up to four members of this council, and this particular Bill suggests that the Minister should appoint not less than half. I suggest that this appears to be a reduction in the freedom of the choice previously enjoyed by the particular colleges. Then I seek clarification of clause 8 (1) (d), line 63. The paragraph reads: “One person appointed by each local authority or other body nominated by the Minister for representation on the council.” Could I ask the hon. the Minister if he could enlarge on what is meant by “other body”? Then from comments received by people who have been very interested in this Bill, it would appear that in respect of clause 8 (1) (f), which is the provision whereby a past student can be elected to the council, although this has to be done by regulation, it is felt in certain quarters that it will be administratively difficult to prepare a regulation which will fulfil the purpose of this particular clause.

I feel that there is a provision which should have been in this Bill and to me unaccountably has not been included. That is one (which was contained in the original Act (Act 30 of 1923), which allowed for the appointment of additional members in excess of the number suggested in clause 8 at present, members who would have no vote, but whose presence on the council could be of value to the council. Another omission which I feel deserves the Minister’s serious consideration, is the fact that there is no provision in clause 8 now for the appointment of committees of the council. In the old Act—and I am correct I believe, in saying that this provision has been implemented right up to the present time—provision was made for the appointment of committees which could function and could co-opt people who were not members of the council, but the provision was there that the chairman of that committee had to be a member of the council. As a member of a technical college council, I have had the privilege of seeing how this system has worked. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this forms a very useful, I would almost say necessary, liaison between certain activities which take place in the colleges, certain courses, and the council itself. I can think of many of these committees which, in the technical college to which I am referring, are known as consultative committees. There is a medical technologist consultative committee. This committee is made up of highly trained, highly qualified medical technologists, who are called together as and when the occasion requires, to meet a member or two of the college council to discuss the problems of any course, any examination, or any matters of interest to the council and to the profession. As a result of those discussions, the members of the college council present are able to go back to the council and report fully on the wishes of the particular body concerned. I know that these consultative committees operate under the purview of other college councils. I believe that there should be provision made in the Bill that these councils can continue to function. I believe that an omission of this nature is not in line with other legislation that has been passed recently, where specific reference has been made to the power to form committees under certain conditions such as for example that the chairman of the committee should be a member of the original council.

Then I would like to refer to clause 10. It deals with the appointment of staff and conditions of service, salaries and leave and it indicates that the establishment of any college shall be determined by the Minister, and then it goes on “provided that the appointment of such members of the teaching and administrative staffs, as the Minister may determine, shall be subject to his approval”. Could the Minister in his reply indicate the extent of this control? Will it apply to all staff, or will it apply to teaching staff or administrative staff and only in the higher echelons of the administration of the college?

Then I would like to seek the assistance of the Minister in regard to clause 12, which concerns the registration of students. I am referring particularly to paragraph (b) which says: “any qualification, whether of an academic or practical nature, recognized by the Minister as a qualification entitling a person to such registration.” Just for the sake of clarity, if the Minister could indicate that he would regard, for example, from the academic aspect, that an immigrant, with what he regards an equivalent qualification, would be accepted under this particular clause, then, in so far as the reference to practical qualifications is concerned, is it the intention to allow recognition to, say, a foreman of a factory, somebody highly experienced, from a practical point of view, but someone who may lack the necessary academic qualifications for registration. If the Minister could indicate that, I would be grateful.

Then I want to refer to clause 15 which deals with inspections of colleges. I believe that a certain degree of dissatisfaction exists among those who have been involved in the negotiations resulting in this Bill now before us. I believe that they feel that the Minister is being a little harsh in requiring such close definition of the powers of inspection. I do not believe that there is any objection at all from any quarter to the Minister having the power to direct at his discretion inspections at any time. But I think that it is felt that with this higher status which these colleges will enjoy this is almost treating them, so far as the inspections are concerned, on the same basis as primary schools. One educationist said to me that he regarded such form of inspection as is laid down in clause 15 as being detrimental to the status of the staff, and he felt that institutions for higher learning should not be treated on this basis.

Then I want to deal finally with a point which I believe to be a very important one. Nowhere in this Bill as it stands is there any reference to the Association of Technical Colleges. I think that the Minister will be the first to agree that this Bill is the result of his consultations with that very Association. He has sought their advice, it has been willingly given, and I believe—and this is to the Minister’s credit—that he has acted on the advice. Why can that happy relationship not persist? Why can some recognition not be provided in this Bill for what will become the Association of Colleges For Advanced Technical Education? I appeal for their recognition. I believe that mere recognition in the Bill on the basis that they will be there for consultative purposes and advice, would be a matter of great satisfaction to this body. I know that they have requested it with all the eloquence at their command through the department, and I believe directly to the Minister too. I appeal most sincerely to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. I believe that it will help the Minister in the implementation of this Bill when it becomes law if he recognizes in the Bill the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. It will provide in the Bill the machinery for consultation. We know that this particular Minister has shown his willingness to consult. But Ministers come and Minister go, and if it is not embodied in this Bill, there may come a time when the Minister may not be so pleased and willing to consult with this particular body. I believe that for the sake of the future of these bodies it is desirable that they should have this recognition in the Bill. I believe primarily that its immediate effect would necessitate possibly an amendment to clause 29, because one of the first things which would flow from this recognition would be that the Minister may consult with the Association of Colleges for Advanced Technical Education when it comes to making regulations under section 29. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give this matter very serious consideration.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) asked the hon. the Minister a few pertinent questions, and also made a few requests to which the hon. the Minister will probably reply when it is his turn to speak. It is significant that on this occasion we have had so much unanimity in regard to education legislation. When discussing this subject it is also necessary that there should be a large degree of unanimity. I hope that this state of affairs will be or is a foreshadowing of the spirit which will prevail here when, later in the session, we will have to deal with other legislation in regard to educational matters.

This Bill is to a large extent a factual one. This legislation is indicative of the positive and progressive steps which are being taken in respect of the provision of the so-much-needed technical education, and more specifically advanced technical education. This legislation also paves the way to important developments which are in the best interests of our country. The four technical colleges with which this measure deals are now being placed in a position where they can specialize in the field of advanced technical education, and do so on a level between those of secondary and university education. It also therefore serves to fill a gap between secondary and university education. On the one hand these technical colleges are no longer providing secondary education, at least that secondary education as specified here, which was actually to a large extent an encumbrance to higher technical education.

Reference was made to the status which these colleges are being accorded. I also want to repeat that. In regard to the entrance requirements for students status is being accorded these courses because only students who have passed the matriculation examination will be allowed entrance to the colleges. Further status is being accorded by the creation of a Board of Studies in each college. Clause 9 makes provision for that. This Board of Studies is, as has already been mentioned, a body which can be regarded as being parallel to that of the Senate of a university. Reference has already been made here to the semi-autonomous nature of the colleges and I do not want to repeat what has already been said on that score.

Commerce, industry, and other bodies are being afforded the opportunity of making donations and of then having a seat on the Council of a college as donors. In the same way local authorities, for example municipalities and town councils, bodies which usually take an interest in these institutions, are also being afforded the opportunity of making donations and by that means also having a seat in the Council of the college. But—and this I would like to emphasize—the colleges remain State-aided institutions which are to a great extent being subsidized and will remain subsidized by the State. That is why, Sir, it is necessary that the colleges should always carry out the policy of the country.

What is for me very important is the fact that provision is being made for the establishment of more colleges. More colleges, over and above the existing four, may be established. It is important because in certain parts of our country—and I am thinking here in particular of the Vaal Triangle—the need for the establishment of such colleges already exists to a large degree, and those needs can become even greater.

What I find particularly important—and in this regard I want to associate myself with the plea made here by the hon. member for Randfontein, with whom I did not consult on this matter but who shares my ideas on this matter—is the fact that this legislation now offers a golden opportunity for the creation of possibly greater co-operation between these colleges and the existing universities. I want to put forward a very serious plea for this co-operation.

In the first place I want to refer here to the Straszacker Commission’s report, that Commission which was charged with investigating the methods of training for university degrees in engineering. In this report we find on page 16. paragraph 631 under the heading “Cooperative Schemes between Universities and Technical Colleges” the following (translation)—

I do not want to read these paragraphs now.

Although such a report is now being submitted in regard to engineering as such, I nevertheless believe that it will be possible to find a new basis of co-operation. I am making this plea for co-operation particularly with a view to the conservation of labour forces in the Republic, especially since we are already experiencing a man-power shortage. In this regard I also want to refer to the figures in regard to first-year failures at our universities. We note that, in spite of all the attempts which have been made in the past to reduce the number of first-year failures at our universities, there has not yet been any appreciable improvement. I am referring here to what a rector at one of the universities said in a city where there was also a technical college. He was referring specifically to the faculty of engineering, and he said that in that faculty, out of 318 students, 43 had not been allowed to write examinations, and of the 275 who had written, 185 had passed. In other words a total of 42 per cent failed. That is a tremendously high percentage of failures. On the other hand there is, in the same city where the university in question is situated, a technical college offering a four-year course, a staple course, as it is called, for engineering assistants. We know for example that the Railways makes considerable use of students who have taken that course. Now I want to ask very appositely whether it would not be possible for an engineering student in the first year for example, who failed at university but obtained a certain sub-minimum percentage, to continue, if he so desires, with a diploma course at the technical college during the following year so that in this regard there will also be reciprocal co-operation between the university and the technical college. It ought also to be the case the other way around. I believe that universities should also be willing to acknowledge possibly two years of a person’s studies if he had obtained a certificate as engineering assistant after he had done a four-year course and excelled in that course, provided that person wanted to study further as an engineer at the university. I think it is necessary that there should be reciprocal co-operation between the university and these colleges. Reference was made to the fact that there is a great wastage of talent. That figure in regard to the number of first-year failures reflects a great deal of expenditure for the parents as well as for the State. There are other similar courses to which I want to refer. I have referred to engineering, but I also want to refer to pharmaceutical courses.

I think the hon. member for Berea will perhaps know more about that than I do and perhaps he can speak more authoritatively on that subject, but I am aware of the fact that diplomas in pharmaceutics can also be obtained in the various colleges. I understand that the Pharmaceutical Board has drafted a syllabus for colleges and that the contents of that course are practically the same as the course followed at the universities offering a degree course in pharmaceutics. Then there are also similar courses in regard to laboratory assistants. Diplomas in that direction can also be obtained at the technical colleges. There are also similar diploma courses for health inspectors. I am merely mentioning these examples to the hon. Minister because I really believe that a basis for co-operation can be found and that a greater understanding between universities and technical colleges can be built up.

The fact that the Opposition had practically no criticism to make on this legislation proves once again that the hon. Minister who introduced this Bill has made his mark in the world of education and that our education can be entrusted to him. The small amount of criticism which was forthcoming in regard to the composition of the council in clause 8 was really very poor, and I want to remind hon. members that technical education is inevitably very expensive. The provision of buildings, laboratories, etc. costs a lot of money, and I want to point out that the State will, to a great extent, have to make provision for that equipment and its maintenance, and that is why it is easy to understand that the State wants to see to it that it retains a say in the council by appointing the majority of its members. The need which does in fact exist for the establishment of these institutions for advanced technical education was pointed out here.

I still want to refer to a few other points. I hope I will not repeat what has already been said by other members. I want to point out that according to data which I have obtained, only 39 per cent of the candidates writing the matriculation examination obtain university exemption. That means that 61 per cent of the candidates writing the matriculation examination, matriculation and other equivalent examinations, cannot go to universities for degree training. Some of those candidates do go to universities and training colleges for diplomas, but it is also a fact that many of these young men and women who hoped to but did not obtain exemption and who would otherwise have gone to university, simply disappear and enter some occupation or other where their services cannot be utilized as productively. In this respect these new institutions which will be much closer to the university in status and who will also provide training of a more practical nature, can also serve a very good purpose and that is why the wastage of human material which we cannot afford at the moment will be counteracted by the establishment of these institutions for advanced technical education.

Reference has already been made to the number of students who fail in the first year at universities and I just want to express the hope that very close co-operation and co-ordination will take place between the universities, particularly as far as the first year failures in engineering and other faculties are concerned because the enhanced status of these institutions which will now be established will satisfy any snobbishness which might exist amongst the students. That is why it will be easy to transfer them to these institutions where they can follow a more practical course and where they will ultimately become very useful citizens of the State.

In the new educational set-up which is about to be introduced, we must also accept that a great and more widely differentiated educational system will definitely have to be worked out and that many more students will have to accept technical and vocational education. Those students who will then have gone through the technical and vocational schools will naturally proceed to these institutions for advanced technical education where they can then complete their courses. In this way I believe that it will be possible to make better provision for our shortage of technicians. At the moment vocational technical schools are experiencing a tremendous shortage of trained teachers and inspectors. At the moment they often have to make use of ordinary skilled tradesmen who have no teaching qualifications, and although the people do good work and always try to do their best, it is still not the ideal state of affairs. It will also be the aim of these institutions to make provision particularly for the training of these teachers and instructors so that it will be possible in this way to make provision for the urgent shortage which exists to-day. But the main reason for it being a very far-sighted step to give these institutions added status now, is the tremendous knowledge explosion which we are experiencing in our time. The most important characteristic of this knowledge explosion, as it is called, is the alarming proportions which natural sciences and technological knowledge have assumed and are still assuming in the past decade and the increasing tempo at which the expansion of new knowledge is taking place almost like a chain reaction.

Prodigious amounts of money are being spent on research by State Departments, companies and individuals. The people and the countries who do not participate, simply fall by the wayside, because knowledge which is to-day still sensationally new, is already obsolete the day after. That is why an important characteristic of this revolution is the excessive demands for natural scientists, technologists, and technicians. In our country, with its tremendous industrial developments, a grave shortage of trained technicians has also arisen. We have tried, very successfully, to get these people from overseas, but the industrial countries are guarding against this so-called “brain-drain” with eagle eyes. We read recently in the newspapers that recruiters who went to West Germany to recruit technicians for our new aircraft factory were not allowed to do that recruiting work, because those people are simply keeping an eagle eye on their trained technicians. What it amounts to therefore, is that we in South Africa are being called upon to make provision for the training of our own technicians. For that purpose the establishment of these institutions for advanced technical education will be supplying a very important need. They will have an enhanced status and will be much closer to the universities, just as in the case of the junior colleges in the United States of America and the Advanced Schools of Technology in Great Britain. The latter country found it necessary last year to accord nine of its Advanced Schools of Technology, which only came into being in 1957, the enhanced status of technical universities so that those institutions could bestow their own degrees. I foresee that it will not be long before some of these institutions for advanced technical education in our country will also perhaps be given the added status of technical universities and that they will also be able to bestow their own technological degrees. The academic university, as we know it, cannot meet this need. I am just quoting what an eminent university professor wrote recently in regard to the way in which he regarded the task of the academic university—

There is a great need for these institutions therefore and an exceptional task and a very great challenge is being imposed on them which we hope they will be able to meet and fulfil. The head of one of these institutions in question told me this morning that they would be quite lost without this measure and would without it have no hope of supplying the increasing demand for trained technicians, and he hoped that this legislation would enable them to meet that need.

But the way I view this matter in the last instance is that it is essential to give active attention to the training of technicians, and that it should not only be in order to meet our own needs. However insatiable those needs of our own country might appear to be at the moment we must also give further attention to the possibility of providing the countries of Africa, our neighbouring countries with technical assistance. The Republic of South Africa to-day is the only country in Africa with a modern, developed and dynamic economy. It is the only country in Africa which has, within a period of 50 years, been converted from an underdeveloped, almost primitive country to a country with a high productivity which is providing a growing population with an increasingly higher standard of living. In contrast with South Africa the new African territories, as independent countries, are coming face to face with grim reality and are beginning to realize that unless their national production increases more rapidly than their population, impoverishment and increasing misery will be the result. Our strength in economic, industrial and scientific fields and their needs supply us with the key to cooperation and friendship. Trained technicians which it may be possible for us to send to African countries may possibly make a break through where diplomacy has been unsuccessful in the past. But however important it is for us to try and state our point of view in the outside world and try and convince the world of our integrity, and however important it might be for us to win friends abroad, I believe that our struggle with the outside world is going to be won or lost in Africa. If we can win friends here—and we have already won a few—we can win good friends in Africa who will stand by us even at the United Nations, then we will also be able to regain the friendship of these countries which are at the moment trying to slap us in the face.

Order! The hon. member is straying very far from the Bill now.

That is why it is essential for us to provide encouragement in this legislation so that these institutions will also make as much use as possible of the training of technicians.

In conclusion I want to direct a very earnest request to the hon. the Minister to include the technical college of Port Elizabeth with the four institutions which have already been mentioned in the Bill. I feel free to make this request to the hon. the Minister because the technical college of Port Elizabeth is already providing 75 per cent of its students with advanced technical education. During 1966 there were more than 1,500 enrolled students which were receiving post-matriculation training at that college. Almost 500 of these were enrolled chemical technicians and engineering technicians, which is a very important supplementation to our technical requirements. A comparison of the numbers of enrolled students also indicates—I have the figures here but I do not want to repeat them—that the work which is being done at the college in Port Elizabeth compares favourably in quantity and scope to that being done at the other four colleges which are being mentioned here. That is why I want to make an earnest appeal to the effect that this college, even if it cannot be done immediately, should also be included as soon as possible. I want to make a further appeal to the effect that a new building—for these people are having difficulty with the tremendous accommodation problem—should be erected in the Driftsand area near the new university.

Order! The hon. member is away from the subject altogether now. This is a matter in regard to which representations can be made administratively and for which provision is not being made in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely mentioning that an unique educational unit can be acquired in the Port Elizabeth area.

On a point of order, I think that the hon. member who is addressing the House now is anxious to have the Port Elizabeth Technical College included with the four technical colleges.

He has made that point, but now he is requesting another building.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that there must be cooperation and closer co-ordination between the universities and these colleges for advanced technical education. If this new building is erected near the new university of Port Elizabeth, it will be possible for closer coordination to take place and by that means a formula may be found which may perhaps be of benefit to the country as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my sincere thanks to hon. members on both sides of this House who welcomed this measure as one which is in the interests of the country and the nation. Some of the welcoming remarks did, in fact, contain minor pinpricks, such as the one that this was a case of reverting to old ways. However, we leave it at that and we do not cry over spilt milk, because this measure opens up a new field of vision of which we are sorely in need. It also pleases me that hon. members saw in this measure a possible way of eliminating a shortcoming in our higher education, especially in regard to the interaction which may come about between these colleges for advanced technical education and the universities. It is gratifying that hon. members saw it in that light, because I think that it is possible that such interaction may come about. There are too many students at universities who follow professional courses, especially in a technical direction, who do not belong at a university and I think, vice versa, that there are students at technical colleges taking a diploma course who can do better by taking a university degree course. Therefore I am pleased that these fine things are seen as possibilities for the future.

A few points of criticism were raised here and I should like to reply to them in brief. I have a feeling that an amendment will be moved to clause 8, which deals with the constitution of the council. In this connection I have to say at once that I am afraid that hon. members will not get me to depart from the principle embodied in clause 8, which provides that the Government or the Minister may appoint as many members to the council as other organizations may do, in other words, a similar number. I feel very strongly about this, because the subsidy which the Government pays is in the vicinity of 90 per cent. That is what is actually important. The training of technicians is not only in the interest of the person whom it enables to earn a living, but it is also in the interests of the country. Consequently there has to be a similar number of Government representatives and I do hope that hon. members will not feel that a change will be the only solution.

The hon. member for Berea dealt with quite a number of the subsections of clause 8 and made certain proposals. Good proposals were made. I cannot reply to each one but there are also proposals which it will not be possible to accept. Certain problems exist and I now want to request hon. members to place amendments on the Order Paper so that we may give them proper attention without any misunderstanding arising in connection with clause 8.

The hon. member for Kensington said in connection with clause 14, which deals with the question of the medium of instruction, that he did not think that it belonged here. I just want to tell the hon. member that this clause is practically a verbatim reproduction of that in the University of Port Elizabeth Act, which is functioning extremely well. The object of this clause is merely that each of these technical colleges, namely the four which are now under discussion, have to make provision for both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking pupils. It is not a question of “as far as that may be practical”. I am aware of the fact that we still have problems at certain technical colleges in respect of teaching staff who are not fully bilingual. We shall not dismiss these people but what must come about every citizen in this country should, as a matter of right, receive technical training through the medium of his mother-tongue, because that is what he understands best. I do not think that is so outdated. It fits in perfectly with our present population structure in South Africa which is made up of various groups.

I shall move an amendment for discussion during the Committee Stage.

If he wants to do that, the hon. member is, of course, free to do so. I think that we shall have to exercise care in this regard. Here I must issue a word of warning. It is by no means my intention that these technical colleges should be enabled to develop into technological universities. I think that would be wrong. The hon. member for Kensington thought that this would be a possibility. These technical colleges have been established to afford any White person above the Std. 10 level but below university degree level an opportunity of taking a technical course. When it becomes necessary for us one day to specialize to such an extent that we have to establish technological universities, it may happen that one of these will be raised to that status by us. I say, however, that we should not hold out that prospect to these people at this early stage, because then we shall find that these institutions will have to be constantly restrained and they will not achieve the object for which they have been established. Personally I am opposed to specialized universities. I believe in a university which has full faculties throughout so that all facets of the community may be served. In countries with millions of inhabitants which can afford to develop in this direction, it can be done but in South Africa it cannot be done. It is simply impossible.

The hon. member for Berea made a strong point in connection with the training of pharmacists. I myself am concerned about the position. The training of pharmacists given by the technical colleges, and I myself have checked that, produce brilliant results in the diploma course. I must say that two of the universities which offer a degree course, namely Potchefstroom and Rhodes, are not very co-operative in being helpful in this regard. We must only do so in consultation. Personally I feel that it is an injustice to those young men and women who receive a diploma training course at these technical colleges that they do not receive the same recognition when they occupy another position or do training in service. I want to make the promise that we shall go into this matter. I am still pressing for something to be done in order that those universities can also provide the necessary degree course to people who have a diploma, so that they may receive the same recognition. The hon. member’s plea is receiving my attention.

The hon. member felt somewhat concerned about the fact that only Pretoria and Cape Town were mentioned in connection with the other secondary training for which provision is made in clause 2 (b). I just want to say that if it should become necessary at a later stage to give additional secondary training at a technical college, such as the college in Durban for instance, we shall not hesitate to do so, but the thing we want to do is precisely to remove these secondary divisions. We are doing that in Pretoria, but in the higher technical division of the University of Pretoria there are no less than 1,000 students and it is difficult to make provision for buildings, etc. The principle is rather to have them away from technical colleges than to keep them at those colleges.

The hon. member raised another point. In regard to clause 10 he asked what my intention was and what staff I would appoint. I may just tell the hon. member that I naturally only have senior staff in mind. Approval will be given for most of the staff to be appointed under powers delegated to the Council. Sometimes senior staff is necessary to ensure that random tests will be made occasionally and that the Minister may see those tests. In regard to clause 12, the hon. member wanted to know what qualifications and practical experience would be taken into consideration. He mentioned a few examples of what I have in mind. I just want to tell the hon. member that these qualifications and practical experience will be evaluated. I for example appointed a person as an instructor at a higher technical school. He is only qualified as a motor mechanic. That person, without any training as a teacher, is one of the best instructors they have at that school. Therefore we shall have to consider every case individually. We shall grant exemption to people who have certain qualifications and practical training to enable them in such cases to follow courses at technical colleges. The hon. member thought that I was somewhat hard with regard to clause 15, which deals with inspections. It sounds somewhat infra dig for the staff of a technical college to be inspected. However, the hon. member should read the clause more closely. It reads: “The Minister may …” If one may do something, that does not mean that one must do so. If the work at a college is done well and complaints, of whatever nature as specified in the legislation, are not received continually, such inspections will not be carried out regularly. We shall immediately recognize the status of the people. However, a state of affairs may come about where things are not at all favourable at the college. In such case the Minister must have the power to send inspectors to that college to report to him. I do not think the staff of the colleges ought to feel bad about that, particularly not if they get such good inspectors as my good friend, the hon. member for Kensington, was in his time.

Then it is not an inspection, but an investigation.

No, an investigation is not necessary. We only have the power to do so.

Then I come to the important request made by the hon. member for Berea, namely that we should re-establish the Association of Technical Colleges and should make provision therefor in legislation. I have a great deal of respect for that idea. However, in the past when all the technical colleges existed as autonomous institutions, this association was abused a great deal. I received many complaints. Eventually many of the delegates met. Even when the colleges were taken over, the association wanted to proceed in the old way and they did not learn or hear a great deal from one another. We then became somewhat bored with that state of affairs. I do think, however, that a new situation has arisen. Here we now have four semi-autonomous—virtually fully autonomous—technical colleges, and I really want to give serious attention to granting this Association official recognition in legislation. I think the situation will change a great deal if we pass this legislation. I think the hon. member should just give me a chance. When we take the Committee Stage to-morrow I shall perhaps have the opportunity to move an amendment in pursuance of what he said.

Sir, I think I have replied to the main points. Once more I want to express my appreciation of the fact that if we pass this legislation relating to technical education we would have laid the first of the three foundation stones. We shall lay the second foundation stone in the form of the national education policy. We shall lay the third foundation stone by putting a stop to divided control. Once we have laid these foundation stones, we shall be able to build the pyramid. Then we shall be able to go higher. Then we shall be known as one of the most modem Western nations as regards the entire determination of our education and the affairs of the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill contains a number of amendments which are of technical interest and are only aimed at streamlining those aspects of the Marketing Act which have become obsolete. In addition the Bill contains amendments which make provision for certain matters which are of a miscellaneous nature.

In clause 1 (a) provision is being made for control over carcasses of slaughter animals which have been condemned for human consumption by the authorized bodies. As the Marketing Act reads at present such condemned carcasses cannot be regarded, for the purposes of the Act, as “meat” or even a “byproduct of meat”. The Meat Board consequently has no control over it, which of course leaves a loophole. By defining it as a byproduct the Meat Board will have control over the utilization thereof and it will prevent any person from dealing in the course of trade with such carcasses.

A proposed scheme in respect of karakul pelts was recently submitted by the Meat Board to the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. This proposed scheme follows upon a recommendation of the Karakul Industry Committee of the Republic and the Karakul Industry Advisory Board of South-West Africa. The intention is that this scheme should apply in the Republic as well as South-West Africa. However, since karakul pelts are not a product in terms of the Marketing Act and since this Act does not apply in South-West Africa either, it is necessary to rectify these matters first.

Provision is now being made in this Bill for the extension of the meaning of the word “product”, to include karakul pelts as well, and also to make the Marketing Act applicable to the territory of South-West Africa only as far as the marketing of karakul pelts is concerned.

Since it is expected that the karakul pelt scheme will only envisage advertising in respect of karakul pelts, the definition of “scheme” is being extended to make a scheme of this nature possible. Provision is being made for this in clauses 1 (c), 1 (d) and 17.

Acceptance of these amendments will not mean that a karakul pelt scheme will be introduced ipso facto, it will only pave the way to the consideration of such a scheme.

Provision is also being made for members of the Marketing Council to be appointed for a term of less than four years. In terms of existing provisions members who are not officers of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing must be appointed for a fixed term of four years. However, there are sometimes reasons—age, for example—for it being preferable to appoint a member for a shorter term. It is the purpose of the intended amendment in clause 2 to effect this more flexible approach.

In clause 4—new section 18 (1) (e)—the Bill makes further provision for the collection of levies from processors of hides and skins on all hides and skins which are processed by them, irrespective of whether those hides or skins are their property or not. The Meat Board has found that the only practical method of collecting levies on hides and skins is to collect it in all cases from the processor. In the same clause—new section 18 (3)—it is further provided that a processor may recover levies which he has paid on hides and skins belonging to a producer from that producer. That tallies with the present provisions in the Act in terms of which agents may recover levies which they have paid from those persons on whose behalf they have been acting.

As a result of certain problems which have been experienced in regard to the registration of producers of fresh milk, fresh skim milk and fresh cream, it is the intention to stipulate a more practical registration procedure. At present the Milk Board may fix one or two dates during each calendar year for the consideration of applications for registration and the consideration of any application is then postponed to the first ensuing fixed date. What this existing provision means is that an application which is received up to as little as one day before a fixed date must be considered on that date. It allows no time for examination by the Board. However, provision is now being made in the new section 18 (2) (e) for the Milk Board to determine, with the approval of the Minister that applications for registration shall be considered during one or more fixed months during each calendar year and that in respect of each fixed month a date may be fixed as the last date on which such application may be received for consideration during that month. Applications received after this date are held over to the following fixed month.

At present the Marketing Act makes provision for the various grounds on which a product can be classified as artificial, for example, according to the purpose for which it is intended, whether or not it is kept in cold storage, and so on. In practice a control board may take different steps for such different classes of the same kind of product. However, the Act requires that a scheme should define in advance such classes of the product, which, of course, is a very inelastic arrangement because it is not always possible to determine in advance what requirements may arise in respect of a product.

In clause 4—new section 18 (12)—a control board is now being authorized if it deems fit, but with approval of the Minister, to classify in the application of its scheme the product in terms of the grounds mentioned in the Act. The prescribed grounds for classification remain unchanged, except for the insertion of a further provision, namely that it will now also be possible to classify a product in terms of the quantity of some ingredient or other of that product, or in terms of the quantity of some foreign matter or other present in that product. In this proposed amendment it is fresh milk in particular which we have in mind, and which it will then be possible to classify on a quality basis. The possibility of allowing the purchase of fresh milk to take place on a quality basis is at present being investigated.

In terms of the existing provision a scheme may, with the permission of the authorities of an area bordering on the Republic, determine that one or other provision of the scheme will apply to a product arriving in the Republic or in the harbour of Walvis Bay or in the harbour of Lourenço Marques, in transit between that area and a destination other than the Republic.

The Citrus Board—with the permission of the territories in question—handles oranges, produced in Swaziland and Mozambique and exported through the harbour of Lourenço Marques. As soon as the cooling facilities which are at present being erected in Beira are completed, it may happen that citrus products will also be exported through that harbour. It is desirable therefore that provision also be made for the handling of products which will go through the harbour of Beira, as is being envisaged in clause 4—new section 18 (14).

The new section 18 (16) provides that the provisions in regard to the disposal of indivisibly small balances in control boards’ pools, and transfers between such pools, may also be made applicable to sales funds which may be managed together with such pools. The Milk Board manages such a sales fund for fresh milk and it also deposits the pool proceeds from surplus milk in this fund. At present the Act provides that when the accounts of a pool in question are closed and the balance is, in the opinion of the relevant board and the Minister, too small to be divided up between the participants in such a pool, such balance may be dealt with in such manner as may be approved of by the Minister. Because control boards already have the power to transfer amounts from one pool to another with the Minister’s approval, and sales funds are managed on almost the same basis as pools, the idea of making this provision applicable to sales funds as well is not therefore a new principle.

Section 18bis of the Marketing Act made provision for the application of the funds which control boards, established in terms of previous adjustment Acts, had at their disposal. This provision was previously necessary when introducing schemes in terms of the Marketing Act which were administered by those boards.

In view of the fact that the need for such a provision in the Act has since lapsed, that section is being repealed from this Bill by clause 5.

Conditions in regard to the buying and selling of products by control boards is at present subject to ministerial approval. In practice, however, and seen from a ministerial point of view, it is only the price or price basis which is of interest in the buying and selling of products by control boards since that can fundamentally influence the general price level of the product. However, it appeared unpractical to subject all the conditions of buying or selling of a control board to ministerial approval. That is why provision is now being made in clause 6—new section 19 (3) (i) and (k)—for ministerial approval to be necessary only in respect of the price at which or the basis on which a control board buys or sells a product in question.

Clause 6—new section 19 (3) (u) and (v)— of the Bill also provides that a control board may require information and returns in regard to anything from which a product may be obtained (for example trees in the case of fruit and poultry in the case of eggs), or in regard to something which may be obtained from a product (for example chickens in the case of eggs). Some boards, particularly the Egg Board, are at present being hampered in the collection of statistical data because only returns in respect of the controlled product may be required. For the Egg Board, for example, it is of fundamental importance to have at its disposal full particulars in regard to chicken production for the purpose of estimating future egg production.

In terms of the existing provision in regard to financial and other assistance rendered by control boards to undertakings for the preservation, processing, storage, etc., of a product, and assistance in regard to research, the Act does not require that such assistance should be subject to ministerial approval. Although control boards in practice usually approach me before rendering such assistance, I nevertheless think that such assistance, which must naturally be co-ordinated and of a strictly judicious nature, should definitely be subject to ministerial approval. Provision is being made for this in clause 6—new section 19 (3) (x) and (y)—of the Bill and at the same time it is also being stipulated that a control board may render assistance—financial or otherwise —to manufacturers of products. When the Bill was drafted the words “with the approval of the Minister” in subclause (y) were accidentally left out and in the Committee Stage I shall move the amendment which has already been printed on the Order Paper so as to rectify this matter.

In clause 7—new section 20 (1) (g) (3)—of the Bill provision is being made for a control board managing a scheme, such as the Fresh Milk Scheme for example, to be able to apply price differentiations according to the class or grade of the delivered product and the payment of the proceeds of a sales fund. This amendment is aimed at making possible the purchase of fresh milk on a quality basis.

Although no practical problem is being experienced with this system it is nevertheless felt that the present marketing arrangement in this regard could be simplified if restrictions could be placed on the quantity which may be sold by a producer in terms of his permit. However, the present legal provision does not make it possible to make such a prohibition apply in respect of a certain class of persons (for example producers) only. At the moment the prohibition is applied to the product or a class or a grade thereof, and the envisaged amendment in clause 7—new section 20 (1) (k)—is aimed at making it possible to apply the prohibition to a class of persons and not the product as such.

It is being proposed that a scheme may authorize its control board to prohibit, except on the authority of the permit of the control board, the buying or selling as such of the product by some or other class of persons, for example producers. The board in question can then issue quantity permits.

It has appeared in practice that it is very important that producers should not exceed the quantities specified in their permits. Doing so not only impedes marketing arrangements but can create serious problems where only fixed quantities of a product have to be handled through a bottleneck. We are thinking of a product such as fruit which has to go through the precooling amenities at docks. Excess deliveries can result in producers being requested to hold back their fruit because the available cooling space at the docks is occupied. Producers who adhere strictly to their permit quantities can therefore be unjustifiably affected.

Unfortunately it is not possible to condemn that quantity of the product which was delivered in excess of the permit quantities before it is shipped or sold—and the only expedient available to a board to compel producers not to make deliveries in excess of their permit quantities is to recover a certain amount of money in respect of such excess deliveries.

Provision is being made in the new section 20 (1) (r) for it to be possible for a control board to be authorized by a scheme to recover from a producer who has exceeded his permit quantity an amount calculated on the excess at a rate determined by the board with the approval of the Minister. This amount recovered will be dealt with in such a way as may be prescribed by the scheme or determined by the Minister.

The Citrus Board which handles all export citrus and which had, since last year, reintroduced one channel marketing in the Republic, has from time to time been faced with the problem of overloaded markets. In order to prevent price collapses in such cases it is necessary for the board to be able to take rapid action by restricting the flow, for example by prohibiting the marketing of undesirable grades or sizes.

It is now being proposed in the new section 20 (16) that the Minister should have the power to vest a board managing a one channel scheme with the authority to refuse, during a specific time (for example the peak of the season) to receive specific classes or grades of that product.

All grades?

Any grade which they may determine. There is no doubt that these measures are of a very far-reaching nature. However, it is something which circumstances warrant because you will realize what problems will be created if a control board is compelled to receive considerable quantities of a product for which a market does not exist. When a controlled product is subsidized by the State the position can arise, as is in fact the case with mealies at present, that the board sells the product at a lower price than the price at which it has bought up that product. This kind of thing can give rise to malpractices whereby quantities of that product which has already been bought and sold by the board may later again be resold to the board.

In order to combat such malpractices, it is being proposed that such action should be a criminal offence, punishable with a fine of not more than R400 or 12 months imprisonment, or both. Furthermore it is being proposed that the court in question, when it has convicted someone of such an offence, should, apart from the punishment which it has imposed, order the offender to pay to the control board an amount equal to the monetary advantage which the accused gained as a result of the offence. Clauses 14—new section 38(f)—and 15—new section 41 (5)—make provision for this.

Certain sections of the Act, namely sections 2 and 17 to 20, which it is not proposed to amend, have been entirely replaced by clauses in this Bill. Abovementioned sections have already been amended and adjusted from time to time in the past and it is necessary to streamline them. That is also a reason for the rearrangement of some of the existing subsections. Clauses 3, 10 and 12 streamline a certain section of the Act, without including any new principles, while clauses 8, 9, 11, 13, 16 and 17 make provision for consequential amendments arising from the proposed amendments to which I have referred.

In conclusion I want to mention that the proposed amendment to the Marketing Act arises from a continual adjustment of the control system to the latest development in production and controlled marketing of agricultural products. All the control boards were consulted in regard to the proposals, in fact many of the proposals came from the control boards themselves. I trust that this Bill, which is in the interests of our marketing, will be passed by this House.

The hon. the Minister has just explained this Bill to us, and I want to say at once that we on this side of the House are not opposed to its Second Reading; that we in fact support it, and I shall also give the reasons why we support it. But before I come to the reasons why we support the Bill. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that it is felt on this side of the House that since amendments are being proposed to the Marketing Act, which is a tremendously important Act as far as marketing the farmers’ produce is concerned, the time has come for this Act, as it has been on the Statute Book until now and as it now stands to be amended by this measure, to be consolidated.

That is one of the reasons for this Bill.

We are glad to hear that. The hon. the Minister mentioned, particularly in the last part of his speech, that the various boards of control had been consulted in respect of the various amendments proposed here. The second point I want to raise is that if amendments are made to the Marketing Act we could save so much more time if we could get the hon. the Minister’s speech in the form of a White Paper. The hon. the Minister himself knows that radical amendments are frequently made to the Marketing Act, and when those amendments are made, the research work to be undertaken by hon. members on both sides of the House will be facilitated a good deal if the Minister could give us a White Paper on the proposed amendments. In the first place such a White Paper could set out the present position, and then the amendments proposed by the Minister. That would mean that it would no longer be necessary for us to ask officials of his Department to explain the amendments in the Bill to us. I am quite sincere in this appeal I am making to the hon. the Minister. We are here dealing with an Act which very few people engaged in agriculture understand properly, by virtue of the fact that most of us who have an interest in agriculture are not lawyers. The Marketing Act is one of the most incisive and important acts on our Statute Book, and that is why I say that the research to be carried out by hon. members on both sides of the House could be facilitated a great deal if we received an explanatory memorandum on the proposed amendments.

We on this side of the House support this Bill because it contains no fundamental abrogations of the rights of the farmer. Secondly we support this Bill because the proposed amendments are useful and because they are aimed at clearing up certain obvious shortcomings which have existed until now. Clause 1 of the Bill comes to mind, which now also makes control over condemned meat possible. The intention is, of course, to prevent meat which is condemned as unfit for human consumption from getting back on the market and being offered for human consumption. It is of course a horrible thought that something of that kind should in fact be possible, and this amendment proposed by the hon. the Minister is aimed at protecting the consumer and at closing up this loophole. But there is one question I want to ask the hon. the Minister in this respect. It may sound as though the farmers want to make money out of condemned meat, but I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if such meat is sold for any purpose other than human consumption, the farmer himself should get the benefit of that.

Furthermore, control over karakul pelts is also provided for. It will now be possible for karakul producers to submit their own schemes. In his speech the hon. the Minister said that it should not be presumed automatically that such a scheme would be established, but the possibility is nevertheless opened up for such a scheme to be established in future, which of course will make it possible to market karakul pelts much more effectively.

In particular, the definition of scheme on page 4 of this Bill provides for publicity for a product within or outside the Republic. Of course we on this side of the House support that wholeheartedly, for not only is it necessary to advertise a product inside the Republic, but even more, particularly when we have surpluses, outside the Republic of South Africa. In clause 2 it is also provided that the State President may appoint members of the Marketing Council who are not officers for a period not exceeding four years. Of course we regard that as a purely administrative proposal to facilitate the business of the Marketing Council. It may perhaps be necessary for the State President to appoint someone from time to time in the place of a member who has resigned on account of advanced age or illness. We therefore have no objection to this provision.

On page 8 of the Bill there is also a small amendment in respect of the functions of the Dairy Board as regards all products defined in the Dairy Industry Act of 1961, and dried milk. The object of that definition is not quite clear to us here on this side, nor did the hon. the Minister explain it, but one can nevertheless appreciate that it is necessary to return to the definition of dairy products as contained in the 1961 Act.

Clause 4 of the Bill relates to the administrative provisions of any scheme. In respect of the levies a control board may impose on products, an amendment is now made to the effect that the person who processes hides and skins may pay the levy on behalf of the producer. Apparently that was the practice in the past. The person who does the processing may, of course, as the hon. the Minister explained, subsequently recover that from the producer. It was naturally never the intention that the farmer who sends his hides and skins directly to a processor should be exempt from the obligation of paying the levy. As we see it, it is therefore once again merely an attempt to close up a loophole which may have arisen. At the bottom of page 14 of the Bill provision is made for extending the period in which the producer of milk, for example, may apply for registration. This is also a good provision, because a reasonable period is in fact essential for proper consideration of applications. We therefore regard this amendment as an improvement too. Subsection (12), page 20, authorizes the board administering a scheme in respect of a certain product to define different classes of that product. Apparently it is now the intention that fresh milk should also be sold on a quality basis. We understand that is in accordance with request from the various milk boards and also from the producers. If by doing so they want to ensure that a better product will get on the market, and consequently also secure a better price for the farmer who produces a better product, we on this side of the House can have no objection to that.

The hon. the Minister referred to small balances which are retained by the milk boards and which cannot be paid out after pools have been operated, and said that milk boards can then use those balances for the purposes of a new pool. We think this is also an improvement, because it is frequently impossible for milk boards to determine what has become of the various producers. Consequently milk boards may be allowed to transfer those small balances for the purposes of the next pool to be created.

Here and there in the Bill there are provisions which will have a radical effect, as the Minister himself in fact admitted. For example, there is the provision which relates to people who are only permitholders and who may buy and sell and who may perhaps give rise to chaos in the docks when export products have to be shipped for overseas consignment. Yet I think this provision is in the interests of the producers themselves. The man who joins other farmers in belonging to a scheme must also submit to the board principles of that scheme. They must also co-operate. The man who produces more than he should, in particular, does so at the cost of the man who adheres strictly to his quota. For that reason I am of the opinion that if such a man is compelled to pay for his excess production, it will promote orderly marketing. Why should the man who produces his correct quota be hampered as a result of the fact that another man produces more than his quota? The man who produces too much will therefore have to pay some from of fine. This Bill also contains provisions in respect of the consolidation of existing practices. Consequently we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. We regard the Bill as in the interests of the farmers of South Africa and we regard it as being in the interest of marketing his produce. We shall therefore not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

I think that after a while the hon. the Minister was no longer sure whether it was someone on the Opposition side or on the Government side who was speaking. In any event, the hon. member for Newton Park could do nothing else but support this measure on behalf of his side. The amendments which are proposed here are certainly improvements to the existing Act. The hon. member devoted his entire speech to the extent to which the farmer would benefit from these amendments. There were many loopholes in the Marketing Act. For example, the Minister referred to the instance of a subsidized product for which the consumer pays much less than the producer receives for it. That is sometimes abused. This amending measure now provides for the elimination of such abuses.

There are many boards of control and every board of control has a scheme approved by the Minister. As has been said, the amendments proposed here, some of which are far reaching, are not to the detriment of either the consumer or the producer. All schemes must be approved by the Minister on the advice of the Marketing Council, which also sees to it that the consumer is not exploited. I think these amendments are really necessary. In view of the fact that the product controlled by a board of control also has by-products which are not controlled by that board, it may happen that such by-products enter into competition with the product itself. That may place the board concerned in a difficult position. Boards are entitled to determine what they will buy—which grades, for example. But no board of control will discriminate in such a way that the farmer will be prejudiced. We find, however, that there are sometimes farmers who produce a poor quality product, sometimes as a result of circumstances, beyond their control.

What kind of farmers?

I am speaking of farmers who because of circumstances beyond their control, such as weather conditions, for example, produce a product which is not saleable. Then the board cannot accept such a product, because if it did that it would simply prejudice its other producers who produce good products.

This Bill also places under control those parts of the country which were not under control previously. That is essential. If a product is to be controlled in the country and a part of the country is not included under that control, there is a great deal of bungling and that control is doomed to failure. I, therefore, welcome it that parts of the country which are not under control at present are now being brought under control. By doing so we can ensure better control. Of course the consumer need not fear that he will now be exploited because tighter control will now be exercised, or because better provision is made for the producer. Consumers are also represented on virtually all producers’ councils. In addition, the Department is represented there, and also the manufacturer who has to process the products. All those concerns look after the interests of the consumer. I think control boards in general welcome these amendments. It will enable them to render much better service and to exercise tighter control. Through these proposed amendments to the Marketing Act they are enabled to do so.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also welcome these amendments to the Marketing Act. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the Act will serve its purpose, namely to provide for the regulation of the production and sale of agricultural products, for the establishment of certain boards in connection therewith, for the grading and standardization of agricultural products, for the establishment of a national mark and for matters incidental thereto. In actual fact there are two things that we welcome—the first is the amendments proposed here and the second is the change in the attitude of the hon. member for Newton Park, in that he is also supporting this Bill. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the necessity for a White Paper on matters like these and also pointed out that it was essential, because far-reaching amendments are proposed, that proper consultation should take place. To that I just want to say that before amendments such as these are effected, consultation with the relevant boards does take place—in fact, many of these amendments are based on the experience gained by boards through the years. The result is that when such amendments are brought up they have already received thorough consideration. The hon. the Minister and the relevant boards know exactly what the effect of such amendments will be. Therefore these amendments can only be to the benefit of the producer and the consumer. In particular I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the provision relating to control over condemned slaughter-stock meat. I think, however, that the hon. member for Newton Park was somewhat off the mark when he suggested that this amendment provided for condemned meat being returned to the consumer.

Hence the amendment.

Condemned meat consists mainly of bruised meat and fin-infected meat. This amendment empowers the control board to take the necessary steps as regards condemned meat. In the past it could not do so and some of that condemned meat went to the municipalities, where it was used for making carcass and blood meal, etc., in respect of which no compensation was actually paid. Now that the board will have control over condemned meat it may handle such meat for the benefit of the producer. That does not necessarily mean, of course, that such meat will not go through the abattoirs, because the abattoirs of local authorities have facilities for its processing. Now the board has control over it, however, and can bargain for a price in order that the producer may at least be compensated for it.

The other aspect for which we and specifically the karakul-producers in South Africa and South-West Africa are most grateful, is that provision is made here for the establishment of a full-fledged karakul board. At the moment the karakul industry is controlled as follows. There is a karakul industry committee in the Republic and a karakul industry advisory council in South-West Africa, and they form a co-ordinating committee to control this industry. But as it is now provided that a full-fledged karakul board can be established, I am of the opinion that it can only promote better marketing, better co-ordination and also an improvement in the quality of that product. A further improvement on the existing position is the inclusion of karakul pelts as a product under the Act. That means that funds can now be utilized for the promotion of that product everywhere, whether inside or outside the Republic. Since karakul pelts are marketed mainly abroad, and to a lesser extent in South Africa, and are mainly a fashion article, they have to be advertised. That is provided for in this legislation. For interest’s sake I may mention that at the recent meeting of the co-ordinating committee an amount of R560,000 was voted for advertising abroad in respect of the karakul pelt. That advertising will and has already yielded dividends, because the sales of karakul pelts overseas are increasing continually. The production and quality of the pelts are also improving continually in South Africa and in South-West Africa.

Another aspect for which we are also grateful is that it is now provided that a marketing council may provide funds for the promotion of research on a product. In the future more and more research will be undertaken in respect of any product, regardless of what it may be. Such boards can perform very useful work by giving money to concerns which undertake research aimed at improving production and quality, and by doing so will do a service not only to the producer but also to the consumers in this country.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Newton Park intimated that we on this side of the House support this Bill. We support it despite the fact that some of the provisions are somewhat drastic. I think that the hon. the Minister used the word “ingrypend”—I refer especially now to clause 7 which refers to a new section 20 (16), as it appears on page 46 of the Bill, and which reads as follows—

The Minister has intimated that this provision has reference particularly to citrus fruit. We know what the difficulties were in that industry. Prior to about a year ago the Citrus Board only had control over exports. Control over the internal market was exercised only by the Citrus Exchange, and that control could only be exercised over its own members. Therefore the independent producers were allowed to market on the internal market as they wished. That situation was quite healthy until the increase in citrus production resulted in the markets being flooded. Control was then extended, with the exception of the Western Cape, for which a special exemption was granted. I say that these provisions are drastic, but if there is to be orderly marketing under those sort of conditions then one must unfortunately accept a position where a producer is told that he may not market certain grades of his produce. Nobody wants to do that, but it is necessary that those producers who were outside the jurisdiction of marketing control shall in future also have to toe the line as regards that type of control.

The hon. member for Newton Park supported this Bill so eloquently and he analysed it so efficiently that the hon. member for Ladybrand seemed to get a little bit confused. I cannot remember his exact words, but he said that he did not quite know just which side of the House people were perhaps on nowadays. I am not surprised that the hon. member was confused because, Sir, if he will cast his mind back some 30 years, he will remember that the principal Act was passed by a United Party government, and what is more, it was passed by a United Party government with the support of the then Nationalist Opposition. Therefore I feel that the hon. member is no doubt entitled to become confused about these things, because the principal Act had a very happy birth and great expectations were cherished for it. It was intended to be the farmer’s charter and in many respects, although there have been disappointments, it has lived up to the expectations. Because, Sir, there have been advances towards orderly marketing and advances towards stability in marketing by the control boards that were established under that Act.

To-day we have the position that the overwhelming range of our agricultural produce comes under the Act in one way or another. What is more, every single consumer of food in this country, which means every person in the country, is affected by this Marketing Act to some extent or another. But it is not surprising that over a period of some 30 years when the country has gone through a war and has experienced also what virtually amounts to an industrial revolution, changes have from time to time become necessary in the Act. Experience and time have revealed on various occasions that amendments were necessary. However, if one looks at some of the marginal notes to the Bill one sees that not only the principal Act is mentioned but there are also not less than ten amending Acts mentioned. And I think that lends force to the plea made by the hon. member for Newton Park. We have here an amending Bill which runs to about 27 pages in each official language and, which is largely a consolidating Bill. I think that it is a pity that the Minister did not take this opportunity of bringing in a proper consolidating Bill which would have consolidated the whole Act, and I hope that this is something to which he will turn his attention. Because frankly, if one tries to work through the principal Act plus the ten amending Acts—it will now be 11—it is like trying to thread one’s way through a maze or to work through an absolute jungle of words.

I think it is a pity, too, that a Bill of this importance, containing many miscellaneous provisions, was not published for information. The hon. member for Karas said that the control boards had been consulted. We accept that they were consulted, and we think that probably what happened was that the Minister’s Department said to the boards that certain amendments were being considered and asked the boards for their consideration of the proposed amendments and their recommendations. Those recommendations were probably made. But the point is this. Although we as members of this House have had a reasonable time in which to study this Bill since it was first introduced, that opportunity was not necessarily given to the control boards. The time is rather short for them to see whether their recommendations have in fact been incorporated in the Bill or not, and to see whether the original suggestions of the Department have been included in the Bill in the form in which they were originally made.

I feel that it would have been better if the control boards had not merely been consulted before the drafting of the Bill but if they had an opportunity to see the Bill as it emerged and to make up their minds about the contents and that there should have been an explanatory memorandum, as the hon. member for Newton Park suggested. I do not want to let this opportunity pass without saying a word in praise of those members of the control boards because they are the people who often catch it in the neck when sometimes somebody else should catch it in the neck. There are occasions when the hon. the Minister, rightly or wrongly, does not follow the recommendations of the control board but then instead of coals of fire being heaped, rightly or wrongly on the Minister’s head, they are very often unfortunately heaped on the heads of the members of the control boards by somewhat irate farmers. I particularly welcome the new section 19 (aa) contained in the Bill which is designed to stimulate demand. I also welcome that part which is designed to improve research relating to the improvement of production, manufacturing, processing, storage and marketing of products. The relevant paragraph (aa) reads:

Some of the boards have already done a great deal of marketing research and there is no doubt that this is a matter of vital importance because some of the markets which still have to be developed are those among our lower income groups and particularly among the non-European population to whom we can dispose some of our products which would otherwise prove to be in surplus demand. I do not wish to dwell on that aspect to-night. The point I wish to make is that I hope that it will be possible for the Boards under the section which gives them power to foster or stimulate the demand for a-product whether within or outside the Republic, to get together as far as marketing overseas is concerned. I do feel that there is a very great deficiency in our present marketing set-up in this regard. Each one of our boards is an autonomous body and it operates on its own, very often in isolation from the other boards. When for example it comes to marketing overseas, there are a great number of facilities which they could share.

You are thinking about the Oilseed Board and the Dairy Board.

I am not specifying any particular boards. They could co-operate and cut their costs and work more efficiently on certain of the overseas markets. As far as I am aware the only way that this is done at the moment is through the Perishable Products Export Control Board as far as refrigeration and the arrangement of shipping space is concerned. Other countries which export agricultural products do follow this practice and do so with advantage. Our board could very well put up a very much stronger promotion campaign for many of our products overseas if they were to co-operate in this manner. I do not know whether this particular sub-section gives the boards that power, but there is a very real need in this regard. I hope that the Minister will give this matter his attention and will reply on this particular point. There is another deficiency. I think that there is perhaps a lack of co-ordination between the boards and the marketing council. In some instances I have this in mind. The marketing council, as far as I know, has no representatives of any boards sitting on it. The boards may make representations to the marketing council, but as far as I know, and the Minister must correct me if I am wrong, the boards do not normally appear before the council to state their own case. I do feel that there is a gap which must be met in some way or other, because the marketing council is operating on its own and the boards are operating on their own. I do not pretend to know what the solution to that is. It may be that the South African Agricultural Union should be included at some stage in order to provide some liaison between the boards as such and the marketing council.

In conclusion I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister. He is aware that recently there was a court order against the Dairy Industry Control Board. The order stated that the Dairy Industry Control Board failed to enforce the price fixing provisions of the relative Act in that it permitted the payment of deferred payments and all bonuses by national co-operative dairies to the seller of milk calculated on the quantity of milk supplied in addition to the prescribed fixed price.

You are completely off the point now.

If the hon. Deputy Minister will be a little patient I shall come to the point now. The Dairy Industry Control Board was directed to enforce all the provisions of the price fixing regulations of the scheme relating to National Co-operative Dairies and was also ordered to pay the applicant’s costs. I raise this matter because it is a recognized principle that the co-operatives when dealing with their own produce they should be able to give any savings that are made back to their members in the form of a bonus. Unlike private enterprise they are limited to 8 per cent in their dividends. This judgment is liable to effect a wide range of co-operatives and I wish to put this question to the Minister. Does he intend to amend the Marketing Act again in order to deal with this matter or is he going to amend some other legislation, such as the Dairy Act?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Albany said that the honour for this Act was due to the United Party. I want to tell him that I think the honour for this Act is due to the sound sense of Parliament as a whole. At that time this side of the House was the Opposition, and the National Party has so far always done what was in the interests of the country. That is why they voted for this Act at the time. I am grateful to see that to-night the United Party is also showing the good sense of supporting this Bill, but I wonder for how long they are going to show such good sense. Is this perhaps the calm before the storm? I want to associate myself with the tribute the hon. member for Albany paid to the control boards. In that respect I am in full agreement with him, but I want to tell him that although he expressed criticism on the co-ordination of the various boards of control he mentioned no specific instances or examples, nor did he motivate it properly. The hon. member for Newton Park said that this Act should be consolidated, but I think that this is already a long step towards consolidation. You will find a tremendous deal of consolidation in this Bill. Perhaps it is not so necessary at this stage.

Why not the entire Act?

The Act has been consolidated to a large extent. Once this Bill has been passed it will not be as essential as it was in the past, but I would not say it is not necessary at all. The consolidation measures embodied in this Bill, as also the correction of deficiencies, as the hon. the Minister has already set out, are welcomed wholeheartedly by our side of the House because it is felt that these are essential for orderly and more effective administrative methods to clear up existing malpractices.

It is high time something was cleared up.

I think it is high time Durban (Point) was cleared up. This Marketing Act forms the foundation for the stabilization measures, and the economic stability of our agriculture is based on it. I believe that at present only about 9 per cent of our total agricultural production is marketed without any form of statutory control. 72 per cent of the total value of our agricultural production is controlled by this Marketing Act.

This United Party Act.

This joint Parliamentary Act. It is controlled by about 18 schemes which have been established. It is a most complicated Act and this Act will always have to be chopped and changed and improved, because it is obvious that this Act is engaged in a never-ending struggle with the inter-action of difficult economic factors and trends which are activated by persons in the economic set-up who always try their level best to fill their pockets at the expense of either the producer or the consumer, or both. Circumstances change from time to time and new knowledge is acquired, which must necessarily give rise to such amendments. I am glad about the specific amendment introduced in terms of clause 1. It was also referred to by the hon. member for Karas as well as the hon. member for Newton Park. I think there is some confusion in this regard, however, and that is in respect of condemned meat which is now defined as a by-product. In the past it was not defined as a by-product and the Meat Board had no control over it. As a result it is accepted—and it is possibly true—that this meat found its way to the broad meat market through the wrong channels. That cannot happen now, because it is now directly under the control of the Meat Board. It must now be dealt with exactly as prescribed by the Meat Board. This measure is to the great advantage of the consumer, of course, who may now rest assured that he will buy and receive healthy meat. It also protects the producer, because he can now rest assured that his market will not be contaminated or flooded by meat which should not actually be on the market. On the other hand we have the long-term view which may also be of great value to the producer. Because the Meat Board now has complete control over such meat, proper research can be undertaken. In future such meat may possibly be utilized profitably, which may be to the advantage of the producer and which may prove profitable to him, which was not the case previously.

As I have said, this Marketing Act seeks to clear up existing discrepancies. I look forward to the day when the 9 per cent of our agricultural produce which is now marketed uncontrolled will also come under the control of this Act, in order that there may be greater stability. I also look forward to the day when it will be possible to effect stability for the benefit of our farming population, those who now have to struggle with the extremely perishable products, and whose prices are dependent purely upon the grace of the inter-action of free economic laws and powers. Briefly, I am pleased to give my full support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park and also the hon. member for Albany have already intimated that this side of the House will support this Bill in principle and in its Second Reading. I find it a great pity that the hon. member for Pietersburg wants to drop a spanner in the works during our first evening sitting, by taunting the United Party with showing some common sense at last in their willingness to support this measure. I just want to remind him that the last time that Party showed any common sense was when they supported this Act, which we had drafted. The previous speaker has also heard something, but he does not know the rights of it. This Marketing Act is an empowering Act which controls 18 or 20 boards, each with its own legislation for its own product. All that this Act does is to authorize them to establish those schemes. I find it a great pity that this authorizing Act, which the predecessor of the hon. member for Cradock so frequently called the magna carta of the farmers …

And so it is.

Yes, for the first time I agree with the hon. Chief Whip. I find it a pity that while we are now dealing with amendments and the consolidation of this authorizing Act, the Minister did not deem it necessary to consult all the boards that operate schemes under this Marketing Act. In this consolidating measure certain clauses are included which will affect certain boards to a larger extent than others. Because it is blanket legislation it will help certain boards and not others. In this regard I just want to mention a few examples.

As far as I can see, the time will never come when the council will say, when dealing with imperishable products and with maize: In terms of section 20 (k) the producer may no longer market a certain class or grade, or the total quantity of product which are now produced in a certain quantity, or everything which is produced above a certain mark; in other words, the producer may no longer sell those products. There will never be such a day. Nor can I say, for example in the case of the Chicory Board, that if chicory as such, which is an imperishable product, is overproduced the board will reach the stage where it will say: Now no more chicory may be delivered to the board. It is a product which does not perish, and it can be held over.

I now want to deal with the many other products that come to mind. I think of the Potato Board, for example. I think of a time, not so long ago, when the potato-growers delivered to the board and the board in turn delivered to those persons who could qualify as drought-stricken. Potatoes were sold as stock-feed at 15c a pocket, of which I bought hundreds to feed stock. I think of the service performed by the board under those circumstances. Even though they had to subsidize the product as far as the producer was concerned, they rendered a service to the consumers, who were the drought-stricken farmers under those particular circumstances, by making it possible for them to utilize those potatoes. I think of the Citrus Board, for example; I think of how easily that product is over-produced. If the Citrus Board is prepared to avail itself of that, that product may be used as stock-feed once the juice has been extracted and the waste has been made into pellets. It is a feed which is at present freely used. I agree that it is with the consent of the Minister that the board will refuse further sales of a class or a kind or of the entire production, either to the board or through other channels. But I now ask the Minister in all fairness, and I shall be grateful if he would reply to this when he gives his reply. I have now mentioned two products and I may mention a string of them. But in the case of potatoes and citrus, in respect of which there is at present over-production, and the board has now recommended to the Minister, and the Minister has approved, that the board may not take in certain classes or qualities, will the chaos not be so much worse if those producers may not deliver—what are they to do with the product? I ask that in all fairness. They may not sell it. Are they to dump it, or are they to sell it on the black market, or are they to try to sell it to the Bantu on the farms or in the locations? What are they to do? Would it not be so much better if we considered that the board would be compelled to take in the production, not necessarily at a fixed price for the season, because even in this respect the empowering act allows fluctuation in the price of a product over a period of one season. I want to suggest that it would be better for orderly marketing if a market were found for surpluses. There must be a market for surpluses. Through supply and demand and the reduction of the price in the course of any one season, the producers themselves will not produce so much again in the following season. Surely that goes without saying. But once the product is there, once the potatoes or the citrus fruit are there a particular season and certain qualities or classes may not be taken in by the board, where is the market for those particular products? I want to make a special appeal to the Minister, that when he replies to the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage in respect of these particular aspects—there are three of them; there is 20 (a) and 20 (r) and 20 (2) (xvi), which all relate to these aspects—if there are surpluses of a product under a control board, and authority has been granted to the board, with the consent of the Minister, to refuse to take in certain classes or grades or—and that is why I made the interjection a moment ago—to take in the surplus quantity of all classes and grades. What is the farmer to do and what will he do with his product? I ask whether there will not be more order in the marketing if the board is compelled to take in the product, even on the basis of a price scale which will drop in the course of the season, when there is a surplus of the product. That is something that causes concern to those of us who have been dealing with this legislation for a long time, seeing that we are now dealing with consolidation. We regret that all boards were not consulted regarding this consolidation of the Marketing Act, because not all of them have been consulted, and each board has its own problems and its own difficulties in this regard, and may certainly make a contribution in respect of the powers in our legislation which controls that board. The hon. member for Pietersburg mentioned that 12 per cent or 13 per cent of the agricultural production which is not controlled. The vast majority of that is perishable products, as he himself said, and the great majority of that is vegetables, and the establishment of a marketing scheme for vegetables entails colossal problems. I would so much have liked to see, in this authorizing legislation, authority incorporated in respect of such an extremely perishable product as vegetables, the marketing of which has always been chaotic in this country because we switch so easily from shortages to surpluses. One week there is almost no fruit in Johannesburg, and a month later there are so many watermelons that nobody knows what to do with them; so that eventually after having failed so many times in our attempts to control to some extent the marketing of perishable products, namely vegetables—and I would readily admit that we tried to take one market and to see whether we could make a success of that, but it would not succeed. Let us see whether we cannot create order out of chaos. It is a remarkably thorny problem, but I would have liked to see it provided in the authorizing Act, if it is not possible to keep the existing Act as it is, that a scheme or schemes may be established for these particular products, to see whether in this regard we cannot create order in respect of this part of the primary production which is still in a state of chaos.

I conclude by repeating my appeal to the Minister. I hope he will give special attention to this aspect which I mentioned. Where such surpluses arise in respect of products which do not fall under control boards as defined in the Act at present, I can foresee nothing but perhaps greater chaos than that of the past.

I should just like to reply to one point raised by the hon. member for East London (City). He referred to problems with regard to potatoes. As the hon. member may know, the Potato Control Board operates a surplusclearing scheme. He himself actually mentioned the problem which that entails, i.e. that it is a perishable product. Now it is the position that when a surplus-clearing scheme such as that of the Potato Board has to function in a market where there is a large surplus of the above-mentioned product, amongst them Grade I and Grade II potatoes, and the position arises that the producers overstock the market with a particularly poor quality like Grade III or even sub-grade potatoes, then it is surely understandable that the control board should have certain powers to prevent that inferior product from being dumped on controlled markets such as Johannesburg, with the eventual result that the market for the good quality is spoilt. That would not be in the spirit of the Marketing Act, because that Act exists primarily to ensure stability and orderly marketing, while such flooding will affect the entire price structure of the good product. [Interjection.] I am merely presenting the true facts of the functioning of this scheme under the Potato Board.

Apparently the hon. member for Albany was not very pleased about the way the hon. member for Newton Park praised the amendments before the House. He said the House should at least remember that the original Act was passed by the United Party. Now I want to submit that virtually only the principles of the original Act are left. In fact, he even said that the Act had been amended ten times precisely to comply with those principles. In other words, it is this hon. Minister who has to see to it that the principles of the original Act are adhered to in order to close up all the loopholes that arise. I want to go even further and suggest that in future we shall see many more amendments of this kind before the House, because the agricultural industry is not a static industry, because it changes continually as a result of drought conditions and rain, with the result that there is a surplus of products one year and a shortage the next. That means that the Marketing Act must be made very flexible, because circumstances change continually. It is most important that the loopholes that arise should be closed up continually, because certain people cause exploitation and speculative conditions in the agricultural industry and provision must therefore be made for protection of the farmer, but also of the consumer. The fact is that under the Marketing Act control over products has expanded to such an extent, as one of the hon. members said, that plus-minus 72 per cent of the total value of all agricultural produce is covered by this Act. As a result that the Act has a further effect. It also affects other products which are not covered by this Act, so much so that the stabilization of agricultural produce and its marketing influences as much as 90 per cent of the total production of the Republic.

In conclusion I just want to mention that in my opinion we have reached another milestone in the stabilization and orderly marketing of our agricultural produce in South Africa through the introduction of this amending Bill.

We cannot allow the statement made by the hon. member who has just sat down to pass unchallenged. The hon. member stated that although the principle of this Act had been established by the United Party, that was virtually all that was left of it. I want to challenge that statement. The original Marketing Act, and the fundamental principles under which stability in marketing were established in South Africa, was passed in 1937 by the United Party Government. It operated, providing security and marketing stability for the farmers of South Africa. This Government came into power in 1948 and I challenge that hon. member, who said that little remains of the original Act, to deny that from 1948 to 1961 one minor amending Bill had been passed by this Government affecting this original Act. In other words, for 13 years this Government governed under this Act with one amending Bill, passed in 1951, which brought about certain minor amendments. But until 1961, 13 years after this Government came into power, it operated and then for the first time this Government laid a finger on this Act to change one single word or detail of it.

In other words, for 13 years the Act placed on the Statute Book by the United Party, the foundations of marketing stability, one of the corner-stones of agriculture in South Africa, was left untouched by this Government because they were satisfied that not only were the principles sound but the details under which the Act operated were so sound and so good that they required no amendment. It was only after 13 years of ploughing with our principles and our provisions that the maladministration, the utter and total maladministration of this Government, forced them to start to tamper with the Act and therefore we now have before us this amending Bill which we are considering to-night, an amending Bill which, although we support it, because the provisions included in these 55 pages of amendments to a measure which for 13 years worked satisfactorily and without difficulty under the present Nationalist Government after this side of the House fell out of power.

Sir, the other important point about this amending Bill which I think should be made here is that this Bill amends an Act which is one of the five corner stones of agricultural stability in South Africa. I refer to the Water Act. providing for water, the Land Bank, providing for finance, the Soil Conservation Act providing for the care of the grass, the Cooperative Societies Act, providing for cooperative marketing and the Marketing Act, this Act which we are amending to-night, providing for price stability. I challenge the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services to name one Bill with a new principle which this Government has introduced in the 18 years during which it has been in power. He cannot name one such Bill. In other words, this Bill amends an Act which forms one of the five basic principles on which the whole agricultural industry in South Africa rests, and I challenge the Minister to name one other Act introducing a new principle in agriculture introduced by him or by his Government in the past 18 years. Whilst we support this measure and believe that these provisions are necessary to assist this Government, we want to make it clear and we want the farmers of South Africa to remember that this Bill amends something which this side of the House gave to South Africa and to the farmers of this country, and this Government cannot name one single measure which it has given to the farmers and which introduces a new principle into our agricultural legislation in this country.

I had no intention of speaking, but I am prepared to accept the challenge issued by the hon. member for Durban (Point). In this regard I first want to say that I challenge that hon. member to prove to me that this legislation was passed by the present United Party in 1937. I think there are only two members left in this House today who took part in that debate in 1937 when this measure was passed. I may tell the hon. member that members who sat in the United Party subsequently and whose names I can mention refused to vote in favour of this Act.

Who were they?

I may also tell the hon. member that both this Act and the Cooperative Societies Act were opposed by most of the members of that United Party.

But the United Party placed this Act on the Statute Book.

It was not the present United Party; it was the United Party under the Hertzog Government that passed this Act. in 1937 fusion came to an end and this Act was passed in 1937.

May I ask the hon. member whether it was not a United Party government that placed this Act on the Statute Book?

Yes, it was a United Party government, but not the Smuts government. What is more, it was not the present United Party; it was a United Party under the leadership of the late General Hertzog. I want to repeat that most of the members of the United Party refused to vote in favour of this Act at the time, especially those members who represented urban areas. I accept that this measure is the corner-stone of orderly marketing, but I repeat that this corner-stone was not laid by that United Party. I am grateful that the hon. member said to-night that this was merely an enabling Act ensuring orderly marketing.

Of course it is.

I am glad that hon. members admit that to-night, because in the past they looked for all kinds of motives for the passing of the Marketing Act, Mr. Speaker, over the years investigations have been instituted from time to time in order to see how one could achieve orderly marketing in South Africa, and we are grateful for the success achieved over those years. Certain amendments were made from time to time in order to promote orderly marketing, and this Bill is a further step along that road. Accordingly we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for coming forward with these amendments this evening, and I wish him every success in the task ahead of him.

Order! We have now dealt with the history and now we shall proceed with the Bill.

It seems to me as though a Bill passes through this House more quickly when there is not general agreement than when there is in fact general agreement. Nevertheless, I want to thank hon. members for the support they have lent this Bill. The hon. member over here said that the Bill was passed in 1937 and that it was amended for the first time only in 1961.

No, I said in 1951 and then in 1961 under the Nationalist Party Government.

By 1951 this Act had been re-written and consolidated.

Under the United Party Government.

The hon. member has been in the Opposition so long that he has forgotten when the United Party last sat on the Government benches.

Name the amendments you made.

In any case, I do not want to argue with the hon. member. I think he merely wanted to make a few jokes this evening, and I do not want to reply to them. We have become used to his jokes.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that it is our intention, of course, to have this entire Act revised and improved. As a result of the various amendments that have been made there are already several anomalies in the Act, but the hon. member will appreciate that in view of the continual amendments that is not an easy task. It is intended to have the Act revised by someone and then to consolidate it on a later occasion.

The hon. member asked that the implications of an amending Bill such as this should be submitted to the House by way of a White Paper. Of course the hon. member appreciates that a White Paper is usually made available if most members of the House of Assembly are interested in the measure. In this case the interest is perhaps not so general. I want to tell the hon. member that when legislation of this nature is placed on the Statute Book we are always prepared to make officials of the Department available to the United Party farming-group or to its entire caucus in order to explain the legislation to them. In this case I think we have allowed them adequate time to make a proper study of the Bill. I really do not think it is necessary to set out amendments in a White Paper every time minor changes are made. I just want to clear up one possible misunderstanding.

I may have come to the wrong conclusion, but from what the hon. members for Newton Park and Albany said I gathered that they were both under the impression that this legislation authorized boards to promote the sales of products locally and abroad. I just want to tell them that those are not powers given to them in terms of this amending Bill; those are powers the control boards already have. As the Act reads at present a scheme must also have a marketing function, and unless it has a marketing function the control board cannot undertake such promotion; and if it is envisaged that a product such as the karakul pelt may be brought in under the Marketing Act and that board will not necessarily have a marketing function, it is also authorized to undertake promotion in terms of this legislation. If the scheme concerned does not necessarily entail a marketing function, the board concerned can undertake promotion in terms of this amending Bill. That is what this amendment amounts to in brief. I just wanted to clear up this possible misunderstanding.

The hon. member for Albany also spoke about the criticism which is frequently levelled at the boards and he spoke of closer liaison between the various boards and the Marketing Council. I just want to reassure the hon. member on that score. The meetings held by the boards are usually attended by members of the Marketing Council. The advice of the Marketing Council is available to any board in terms of the Marketing Act. But when the Minister is advised with regard to price determinations the board and the Council do not give their advice jointly; they function separately. If the hon. member is in close touch with the boards he will know that members of the marketing Council attend most of the meetings of the boards. The members of the Marketing Council or officials of the Marketing Council may then of course state their views there. In that way the matter is sometimes resolved of before the Marketing Council takes its decision.

Mr. Speaker, of course most of the things I have referred to now do not have much to do with this Bill. The hon. member also referred to the judgment of the court in the case instituted by the Dairy Board. It is quite possible that in the course of this session we shall have to submit a further amendment of the Marketing Act, but at the moment we are still engaged in consultation. It is also possible that if the Council takes steps against some of the co-operatives in terms of the court order, the co-operatives may decide to appeal. But I want to assure the hon. member that the matter is already enjoying the attention of my Department and myself. We are at the moment engaged in consultations with the boards and with other interested bodies with a view to finding the best solution to this situation.

The hon. member for East London (City) referred to the powers conferred by the Act, in terms of which certain grades or classes or quantities of products may be debarred from the market. He felt that the board should actually take in those quantities or those classes, and try to find a market for such products, and that would be better than to hold back the product on the producer’s farm, or wherever it may be. The hon. member will realize of course—we all know that because it is one of our economic laws—that if one offers surpluses on a market, even as little as 10 per cent or 15 per cent, the price basis of the product may be influenced to such an extent that one realizes much less for the larger quantity than one would have realized for the smaller quantity. That means that the price of that product which is now held back in terms of the provisions of the Act in many cases does not justify the costs of transportation to the market. We have had many cases —I am now referring to citrus, for example—where the board offered surplus citrus for transportation to some point or other with a view to consumption, and the board could find no-one to take in the citrus and just pay the cost of transportation. In such cases it will not pay the board to incur the high railage charges for having the product transported to a certain point and then try to find a market for it there; that would be quite uneconomic, because in many cases the railage would be higher than the price the board would realize for that product. But in many cases those products can be utilized for purposes other than that for which it is marketed at present. The other purposes for which it may be utilized are frequently used as a stock feed, etc. For that reason the boards try to find other uses for such condemned products. As hon. members know, that principle is applied when there is a surplus of potatoes. Then certain grades of potatoes are made available for other purposes, for example for stock feed. Not only the reject grades but also the acceptable grades are made available in this way. The hon. member mentioned the question of chicory, for example. The chicory board has also utilized chicory for other purposes in times of great surpluses, for example stock feed. The situation may also arise that there is no demand for or that no use can be made of those surpluses. In such cases it is better that the product should remain on the farm because that is more economic, since no extra costs are incurred. That also has the result that the sinking market is not affected any further.

Mr. Speaker, many things which were said here this evening have absolutely no connection with this legislation, and you will perhaps not hold it against me if I do not reply to those points. If you wanted to do your duty, you would perhaps rule me out of order if I were to reply to those points.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill of which I am now moving the Second Reading will effect amendments to the Act which relate to the re-development of slum and dilapidated areas in order to create decent living conditions, and to the settlement and re-settlement of our various population groups in full-fledged, homogeneous communities. I believe that hon. members would like to see as much as I do that the administrative procedures involved in these things will run as smoothly as possible and that the process will be attended by the least possible hardship for those affected. These are the underlying reasons for this Bill.

Because this Bill may perhaps be dealt with best during the Committee Stage on account of its many provisions and their diverse nature, I have provided hon. members informally with an explanatory memorandum and consequently I am not going to explain all clauses in detail. I do want to mention a few nevertheless, and I should like to deal with them in groups.

The provisions of clauses 2 and 5 and the penalties now being inserted by clause 14 are those which are aimed at promoting the redevelopment of slum and other dilapidated areas and group areas. Hon. members will realize how impossible it is to plan or redevelop an area if properties situated within such an area are constantly being altered. If in addition these alterations are made without their knowledge, the task becomes a totally impossible one for planners and cost accountants.

This then is the reason why clause 2 prohibits the sub-division of land and clause 5 prohibits the erection of new buildings and the alteration of existing buildings without the prior approval of the Community Development Board. Such applications for approval will enable the Board to determine in good time whether the proposed sub-divisions, or the additions, or the erections, can be made to fit in with the planning and proposed development, or will fit in normally.

Where property is expropriated for development, or re-development, major delays, as a matter of fact disruptions, are sometimes caused by owners, fortunately a minority, who simply refuse to comply with the provisions of the Act in that they fail to furnish the prices they want for their properties and other information required for completing the expropriation process, and where necessary, arbitration proceedings. Clause 14 now seeks to eliminate these unnecessary delays and the attendant disruption, as well as unauthorized and onerous development.

Clause 3, which merely defines the remedies against borrowers from the Development Fund, is derived from the Housing Act and is an ordinary business clause.

Clause 4 makes the existing section 21 more streamlined, specific and comprehensive and will be instrumental in eliminating a large amount of administrative reference work and possible errors.

I now come to clause 6 (a). After the basic values of affected properties have been determined owners may lodge a complaint within 21 days if they are not satisfied. Revision courts are then appointed to hear both sides and to determine a basic value of the property. The duration of the sessions is determined and arranged on the basis of the number of objections which have been received. But now it happens that one or perhaps more objections are lodged after the expiry of the period of 21 days and often after the revision courts have been appointed and have sometimes made arrangements for sessions. In terms of the existing Act such late objections have to be referred to me to determine whether or not I shall condone them. In the meantime all the arrangements for the revision court come to a standstill until it is possible for me to consider the application for condonation after a thorough investigation has been instituted. Not only does this make for delay and cause inconvenience to the members of the revision court, but it is also prejudicial to the interests of other owners who then not only have to wait longer for the final outcome but also have to incur more expenditure if they want to employ legal representatives and other legal aids. Therefore I propose to allow only a further period of 21 days for lodging late objections after the expiry of the first period of 21 days, provided, of course, that a sound reason can be advanced for the late application. I believe that this ought not to affect anybody adversely because the notice of the determination of the basic value must be served on the owner or his representative, and in such notice he is informed that if he is not satisfied he has to lodge an objection within 21 days.

In terms of clause 10 (a) I am empowered, to the extent I deem fit, to delegate to the Secretary of my Department of Community Development my powers to acquire land by means of expropriation. It is my intention to delegate such powers only in respect of undisputed cases and within the framework of standing directives. Hon. members will understand if I tell them that there sometimes are large numbers of such expropriations and that I then have to approve the expropriation of each site individually whereas one can readily give this approval in respect of an entire area and then delegate the individual cases, where guiding principles have been laid down, to the Secretary.

Clause 11 is self-explanatory and is derived from the Expropriation Act of 1965, and in respect of clauses 12 and 15 I have nothing to add to the explanatory memorandum.

I should now like to deal with the important, remaining clauses—those which deal with the determination of basic values, the payment of contributions and related matters—in other words, those provisions which hold financial benefits for the owner of affected property.

As the definition of “basic value” read at present, the danger exists, however, that it may happen that the owner of an inferior structure may be affected adversely. The problem may arise where an inferior structure, which meets the requirements of the owner in all respects, is situated in an area which is proclaimed for another race group with higher requirements. The problem would become even worse if such an area, as the result of proclamation, develops rapidly. In terms of the provisions of the Act—section 1—the basic value of land is the value it had immediately prior to proclamation. To determine the basic value of a building a valuator has to determine the estimated cost of erection thereof at the time of the valuation thereof and then deduct depreciation. There is a proviso, however, which provides that the basic value of a building may not exceed the difference between the market value of the entire property and the basic value of the land, i.e. the market value of the land immediately prior to proclamation. The amendment which is now proposed, namely clause 1 (b), places it beyond any doubt that the market value of the entire property also has to be determined as it was deemed to have been immediately prior to the basic date.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members can easily picture to themselves what can happen in certain cases if a valuator does not act strictly in accordance with this, because it must be remembered that it is not always physically possible to determine basic values immediately after proclamation. Let us take as an example the case of a heterogeneous residential area which is proclaimed, let us say, as a White area. In such an area there may be an owner of an inferior zinc structure which he himself occupies and which had a reasonable market value for others with his requirements while the area was occupied on a heterogeneous basis. After proclamation the market value of this structure decreases gradually to such an extent that it may subsequently even come to be regarded as an encumbrance of the land. Therefore, should a valuator subsequently determine the market value of the entire property as at the date on which he carries out the valuation—perhaps even two years after proclamation—and then subtract the value of the land from that to obtain the value of the structure, precious little would remain in respect of the structure. I want to prevent the danger of something like this happening. I want to see to it in all cases that the owner must get an honest value for his structure in the light of the purpose for which it was used by him, irrespective of however unsuitable it may be for the new, qualified group. From the nature of the case, he in most cases has to use what he receives for his land and the structure thereon for his own re-settlement in his own area. Therefore this amount must be as realistic as possible. I think that is right.

This, however, is not the only type of case in respect of which this proposed amendment eliminates the possibility of an injustice. In heterogeneous residential areas which are classified for another race group than the White group, it may happen that market values decrease after proclamation, even if only temporarily, as a result of the fact that the White man’s buying-power and interest have been removed from the area. Therefore, if valuators, in determining the basic value, were to try and determine the value of the entire property as at the time of the valuation, the position might arise that the basic value of the building would be affected adversely when the proviso to the definition is applied. What will happen then, is that the market value of the land prior to proclamation will be the basic value of the land. If it is necessary to determine the basic value of the building by deducting the value of the land, i.e. the basic value of the land, from the market value of the entire property, the value of the building will obviously be less. But, if the market value of the entire property is determined as prior to proclamation, i.e. when there still was a White demand for property in the area with its attendant higher values, the difference between the value of the land and of the entire property will obviously be higher with the consequent higher basic value for the building. I believe that hon. members will agree that this amendment will eliminate these possible adverse effects which proclamations may have on the values of the properties of people.

But, Sir, this Bill goes much further. If the owner of an affected property sells his property to a qualified person or to the Community Development Board for a higher amount than the basic value, he at present has to surrender 50 per cent of the difference between the basic value and the higher selling price to the Board. In the light of the circumstances which prevailed at the time when the Act was drafted, this provision was written into it quite fairly and rightly. At that time values were reasonably static and in the vast majority of cases increases in value at that time followed on the proclamation and the subsequent development of areas. In other words, they resulted from the proclamation of the area. Therefore it was no more than right, that the Board, which was responsible for the development of the areas and which caused the subsequent increases in value, shared in the increases in value which were brought about through its actions.

I think the position is quite different to-day. There has been and still is a natural, gradual increase in the value of immovable property, irrespective of the area in which it is situated and in many cases this increase in value to-day is the result of factors which have nothing to do with the proclamation and development of areas. If, under present circumstances, we were to adhere to the existing provision or would try to distinguish between what share of the appreciation came about as a result of proclamation and what share constituted a natural appreciation then I believe that there is a possibility that we may do persons who happen to be the owners of affected property an injustice.

In the first place he would be expected to surrender a share of this general appreciation of his property whereas his neighbour, who may happen to be a qualified person, will be able to utilize the full benefit of the appreciation. In the second place he would be expected to resettle himself elsewhere, at to-day’s increased prices, from the proceeds of the sale of his affected property and that without being able to use the full value of his affected property for that purpose. That I think would be wrong.

For that reason it is now proposed that the Act be amended in such a way that the owner of an affected property is granted a period of five years after the proclamation of the group area during which time he may dispose of his property and claim for himself the full benefit of any increase in value. In other words, the Board altogether forfeits its right to claim any contribution in respect of the sale of an affected property during the first five years subsequent to the proclamation—however high the selling price may be.

It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, that if this concession were to apply indefinitely, unqualified persons would tend to keep possession of their properties indefinitely so as to utilize possible subsequent benefit and in this way might delay the development of areas. The alternative would be that the Housing Fund and the Development Fund would have to pour money into the respective group areas to build houses for the same owners somewhere else in their areas while they keep possession of their properties in the other area.

As an incentive it is therefore proposed that if an affected property is not alienated to a qualified person or to the Board during the first five years after the basic date, the owner has to surrender to the Board a contribution of 25 per cent of the appreciation in respect of a sale during the sixth year and a contribution of 50 per cent in respect of a sale during the seventh and subsequent years.

This Bill goes even further in promoting the interests of owners of affected properties. Not only does this concession of a contribution-free first five years and subsequent contributions according to a scale apply in respect of voluntary sales but it has also been extended to cover all cases where the affected property is expropriated by the Board itself or by another body. I may just mention that this provision will be deemed to have come into operation as from 1st February, 1967, so that all sales since that date will be subject to this new provision.

In terms of the present provisions of the Act an owner of an affected property may approach the Board at any time when he thinks that the market value of the property is equal to or exceeds the basic value, to have his property removed from the list of affected properties. If the Board agreed with his valuation, his property was deleted upon the payment of the usual contribution of 50 per cent of the difference between the basic value and the higher market value. Where no contribution in respect of alienation will now be payable during the first five years and the basic value consequently is no determining factor during this period, it is consequential that there will also be no deletions during this period.

Mr. Speaker, there are large numbers of owners of affected properties who have, for reasons of their own, taken no steps throughout the years to sell their affected properties to qualified persons. This measure now affords such people an opportunity to alienate their affected properties to qualified persons during the next five years without the payment of appreciation contributions. But, and I feel I must emphasize this very strongly, over and above the fact that no appreciation contributions will be payable to the Board for the next five years, or for five years subsequent to the proclamation of any group area, owners of affected properties retain the guarantee against losses which the Act affords them at present. Where an owner, as a result of the poor value of his property, has been obliged to be satisfied with a lower selling price than the basic value, the Board has always compensated him by paying him 80 per cent of the difference between the basic value and the lower selling price. This protection remains as it is and will, as in the past, always be paid out in appropriate cases, irrespective of when such an affected property is sold.

This, Mr. Speaker, is what is contemplated with this Bill. I repeat: In this Bill many things have been embodied which will be of great benefit to the owners of affected properties and which it is hoped will contribute to re-settlement on the fairest basis possible. If more information is desired about specific clauses, those with which I have dealt or other, I shall gladly furnish such information at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, this amending Bill is probably the eleventh or twelfth Bill amending group areas and community development legislation, in which I myself have participated. To the best of my knowledge and belief this is the first time that I am able to say that we on this side of the House are going to accept the principle of one of these Bills, namely of this Bill. However, I have a few points of criticism. One of these is that legislation of this nature, although it was recently consolidated, is legislation of such a nature that we should have longer time to consider it—not necessarily because we on this side of the House cannot handle it but because there are so many outside interests affected by such legislation. The hon. the Minister will remember that he received a memorandum from members of the legal fraternity who find themselves in some difficulty over this measure for the simple reason that they have not had adequate time in which to consider it properly. You know, Sir, people cannot just drop everything, they cannot drop the business of their everyday lives in order to consider legislation because the Minister wants to bring it before this House and because the Order Paper of this House decrees that it should be considered at a certain time. Therefore I should like to tell the hon. Minister that he should learn how to handle legislation of this nature, legislation which affects so many people throughout the Republic. He should learn to allow sufficient time in order that every one of the affected people could have an opportunity of expressing an opinion and contributing their views on the legislation as such.

I am not at this stage going to deal in detail with the clauses of this Bill because I agree with the hon. the Minister when he said that this Bill was essentially a Bill for discussion in the Committee Stage. Therefore we will deal with the various clauses in more detail during the Committee Stage. However. I should like to advance a few reasons why we on this side of the House are going to accept this particular piece of legislation. Whilst I believe that the proposed alteration in valuation, determining basic values, will in the long run be detrimental to owners of affected properties, I nevertheless believe that at last conscience has had an effect on this Bill and that affected owners stand to gain thereby. I believe that what they are going to suffer in terms of this legislation will be more than offset by the fact that they will not have to make an appreciation contribution for a period of five years. I know that this appreciation contribution scheme which the hon. the Minister is introducing by means of this Bill is obviously designed to speed up the implementation of group areas, because if a man can retain the full profit he can make on his affected property if he sells it within 60 months, obviously he is going to make every effort to do so in order to retain that total profit, which may help to re-establish him in the new area to which he has to go. Here I cast my mind back to the days of Isipingo when many of the old pensioners there would have welcomed the opportunity of retaining the total profits which they could have made on their properties and not have to pay back to the board half of the difference between valuation and the price they actually received. Had that been possible, it would have helped them to re-establish themselves in a new area in a much better way. But instead of that, many of these people had to go into board and lodging, people who had all their lives lived in houses. So I should like to see the hon. the Minister making this legislation retrospective to the date of commencement of the Group Areas Act. I should love to see that and although I do not normally like retrospective legislation I would support that. We have no objection to making this legislation retrospective to the 1st February—our only complaints is about the year. If the Minister wants to take it back a few years …

Order! That is not contained in the Bill.

I am trying, Sir, to deal with the principle of retrospectivity. However, I am very pleased to see that the hon. the Minister has introduced into this Bill this new principle of allowing people five years during which to dispose of their property without penalizing them. On this aspect there are two lines of thought. One is that this is a relaxation; the other one which I have heard and which was put to me is that it is actually a penalty on those people who have been unable to sell their properties within a period of five years.

But they can sell it to the board at any time.

They can, Sir, but after five years they have to pay 25 per cent of the appreciation. After six years they come back to the ordinary 50 per cent which they have to pay at the present moment. The hon. the Minister says that they need not wait that long. But they have to find a buyer. We know for a fact that in the past people were held up in disposing of their property by having to wait for a basic value. They did not know whether they were going to sell it for the right price or for the wrong price. I take it that it is the hon. the Minister’s intention in this Bill to say that he now does not need to determine basic value after declaring an area as a group area until a period of five years has elapsed. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with this point in his reply, because there is no appreciation contribution by the owner of an affected property under five years. Is that so?

The basic value has to be determined as soon as possible.

I am glad the hon. the Minister has told us this because had it not been so—and this is why I have asked him the question—it seems obvious to me that the person who has to wait five years for a determination would obviously be at a great disadvantage.

That is the reason why I bring in the other amendment of the 21 days.

I do not altogether agree with that. However, I am very glad to have this assurance from the hon. the Minister. I am glad that at this stage we have got this point cleared up. The other point of criticism I have in relation to the determination of basic value is that whilst I am glad to see that the Minister has accepted the principle of taking some cognizance of market value in determining basic value, he appears to have used market value as a limiting factor instead of taking the view that it should not be less than the market value. I believe that if the Minister had taken the view that the market value would be the minimum figure which people would be entitled to he would have rendered those people who are affected, a service. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister smiles and shakes his head but let me put it to the hon. the Minister: Where is the sense of introducing the principle of taking cognizance of market value if the disqualified owner is not going to have it as a minimum? Where, for certain reasons the board values a property at more than the market value when it takes the market value into consideration it would appear at the present moment—we can discuss it further in the Committee Stage— that valuation would be reduced to a lower assessed market value should the market value be lower than the actual valuation that has taken place. This seems to be the point which I must criticize. As a matter of fact, this is a complaint which was made to me. The complaint was put to me that the hon. the Minister is taking entirely the wrong view in relating market value to basic valuation.

The hon. the Minister says that he has had to introduce this limitation on time for appeal. I am sorry to see that the limitation now proposed to be placed on appeals against valuations is going to be restricted to 21 days plus 21 days. Because this is what the relevant clause says. Heretofore the hon. the Minister could after 21 days give a further period in his own discretion. But this discretion he now proposes to take away from himself and proposes to substitute a fixed period of 21 days only. That is all right under normal circumstances but I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me when I say that most of the people who are affected by group areas determination are people who do not have the means in many cases to determine in the first instance whether an area has in fact been declared a group area. It takes a certain time to get that news through. After that they do not have a clue as to the processes of the law applying to them. They do not have a clue and by the time they find out probably more than 21 days have passed. Then they have to make a belated appeal and now the Minister is limited in terms of the proposed amendment only to give them another maximum period of 21 days in which to appeal. In many cases these people are quite ignorant of the processes of the law and how to go about determining their rights and ensuring that they get a fair deal. I have just been reminded by an hon. member that the method of applying is a very complicated one. The forms they have to fill in and the information they have to supply are something which the average person is quite incapable of doing and all of them do not have the assistance of people to help them to comply with requirements of the group areas legislation.

Ninety-nine per cent of them do it within the first period of 21 days.

Let us give them full marks for that. As I have said, this is not easy legislation to comply with. As a matter of fact. I think the hon. the Minister himself will concede that. Unless some of them therefore receive assistance and advice from the Minister’s department they do not know how to set about it. Therefore I am rather sorry to see that the Minister’s discretion is now being limited to a fixed period of 21 days. I think the original provision could have been left as it was. Even then the hon. the Minister could in cases where he thought such to be justified limit the period to 21 days but at the same time he could in the case of one property with many owners—the hon. the Minister probably has had the experience of this in the case of Indians and others—where it is difficult to get all the owners together to get their consent in order to comply with the law, allow a longer period. The Bill also prohibits alterations, additions and now subdivision of affected property and removes the discretion, which the Board now has to revalue and condone any such unauthorized alterations and additions. All good faith has made alterations or additions to an affected property the board had the discretion to say that it would reassess the valuation and re-value the property in the light of the alterations and additions which had been affected if it was satisfied that it was done in good faith and not with the full knowledge that it should not have been done. The board had the discretion to say that this be condoned and to revalue the property, but this discretion is now being taken away from the board in terms of clause 5. Not only does it take away the board’s discretion but it also imposes quite a stiff penalty on people, i.e. R500 or one year’s imprisonment, or both. I think that is a very bad thing. Surely the Minister has powers under other legislation to do something about it. I should like him to tell us when he replies why he has found it necessary to remove the board’s discretion in cases of this nature and in addition to impose this very stiff penalty particularly taking into consideration the class and type of person with whom he usually has to deal in these cases.