The University of the Wit-watersrand, Johannesburg (Private) Amendment Bill, which has just been read a first time, seeks to amend a private Act and, as it has not been introduced by the Government, the Standing Orders relating to Private Bills would normally have had to be complied with.

However, the promoters submitted a request to me during the recess that I should exercise the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permit the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

As I was of the opinion, after careful examination of the Bill, that it would not adversely affect the rights or interests of any persons, I informed the promoters that I was prepared to accede to their request.

The Bill may accordingly be taken through its remaining stages as though it were a public measure.

Thank you, Sir.

I move—

When the Bill which is now before us came up at the second reading, we on this side supported it but we made it known that we were not happy about the contents of clause 2. When the Committee Stage came along we moved an amendment in the hope that if the fears we had were not justified, the hon. the Minister would accept our amendments, in which case all would probably have been well. I think in moving my amendment I made it quite clear that the effect of it was not to defeat the object of this law, but purely and simply to alter the details in such a way that they would give the people affected by this clause the opportunity of taking some action in the future should the necessity arise. But unfortunately, on the showing yesterday in this House, we realize now that our fears were well-founded, and on the performance put up by that side of the House we know now that the intention of this Bill as it is now is absolutely clear. It is a Bill which we on this side cannot under any circumstances support.

You see, Sir, under this Bill the hon. the Minister is taking powers unto himself to cure what he believes to be an evil as regards the administration of this Act. He has found a loophole in regard to children who are only classified when they become 16 years of age, so by putting in a little sting in this amending clause, instead of amending children’s registration under the Population Registration Act at the age of 16, he is now going to do this at birth. Sir, what is the effect of this going to be upon the people to whom the contents of this Bill will be applied? It will mean that they will be aliens in their own home amongst their own people. This is the effect that it is going to have upon them. I raised these points yesterday and not one member on that side of the House dealt with any of the important effects that this Bill will have upon the people to whom it is going to be applied. Sir, let us look at that particular group on whom it will have the most serious effect. I refer to that group of people who have married legally under the laws of this Government, in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act. In passing I might mention here that the hon. the Minister did not even seem to know yesterday that that Act existed. Sir, they have married in a perfectly legal manner, and, as normal people do, they will have children, and the act of having a child is going to bring the provisions of this clause into operation as far as those people are concerned. What effect is it going to have upon them? Until the hon. the Minister dispels these fears, we say that amongst other things this Bill will have the following effects: One of the effects is going to be that a mother with a white identity card under the Population Registration Act can have a child who is Coloured. The question automatically arises: How can that child live with its mother; how can it occupy premises in a group area which will have been proclaimed for white occupation? These are but some of the questions which arise. I asked the hon. the Minister yesterday to which nursing home the mother would go to have this child, which is obviously going to be Coloured, because it is labelled “Coloured” before it is born. The only reply I could get in a laughing, joking manner, was that nursing homes did not fall under this Minister, but my question was not answered. I still wonder to what nursing home she will in fact go when the provisions of this Bill are applied to her. I want to know too where this child is going to live until it attains the age of 16 years. I also want to know to what school it is going to go from a white home in a white area. It is going to go to a Coloured school if the hon. the Minister applies the terms of this Bill to that child. These are but a few of the difficulties; I could go on for hours mentioning other difficulties that will arise from the passing of this Bill. Obviously other speakers on this side are going to mention other points of their own, but I mention these few points to show why we are going to vote against the third reading of this Bill and to show in no uncertain terms to this House that this Bill cannot possibly be accepted.

The hon. the Minister thinks that he is blocking loopholes. He might be blocking one and he might for all time be stopping the entry of a child into a school which is intended for a group to which it perhaps does not belong because its birth certificate will now show that it belongs to another group. The hon. the Minister might stop that, but what other snags is he creating by doing this? I have enumerated a few of them. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are being asked to pass legislation of this kind. While it is intended to deal with a particular technical difficulty that the Minister or his Department is faced with, this Bill is going to create a whole set of human problems. How are we going to deal with these problems when they arise? This Minister has no idea; he showed that yesterday. He had not even thought that these problems might occur. Sir, this is what is going to happen to people to whom the provisions of this Bill will apply, and words fail me in trying to express my abhorrence of this kind of legislation. It is being introduced to deal with the odd person and it is going to upset the lives of hundreds or perhaps thousands; I do not know how many are going to be affected by it. But what is the object; what is the sense? I fail to see it. As I see it, the om effect in the long term that this Bill is going to have is that children are going to be liable now to be kicked out of their parents’ homes at the age of six months instead of at the age of 16 years. Sir, I am sorry, I cannot support legislation of this kind.

The hon. member for Umlazi took a specific example and based his whole argument on it. The example he mentioned was that of a white woman who entered into a lawful marriage with a non-white person. The question he asked pursuant to this was: where should the child of that married couple live if, in terms of his present classification, his race is shown to be “Coloured” on his birth certificate? As far as I am concerned, that child is going to live with his parents. After all, the man, who is a Coloured, is living with his white wife—why can the child not live with his wife as well? To me this is quite simple. Why would the child be kicked out of his home simply because his race is shown to be “Coloured” on his birth certificate? Surely, what the hon. member said here, is rubbish, for why would one allow a non-white man to live with a white woman and not the children out of that marriage? The reply to the hon. member’s question is therefore that the child will live with his parents.

Let us see what would happen if the hon. member for Umlazi were to have his way. The hon. member said that in principle he had no objection to the birth certificate being altered—in fact, he is still saying so. Therefore he has no objections to the correct particulars being inscribed on the birth certificate by the registrar.

But the hon. member wants a note to be added which would indicate that the birth certificate concerned had been corrected. That is what the hon. member wants—there should be a clear indication that the child’s original classification in terms of section 5 of the Population Registration Act has been altered. But what difference does this make to the situation? The Minister said that he could have that done by way of regulation, but suppose the Minister does not keep his word. What difference would that make? If the hon. member for Umlazi has his way, the birth certificate of that child would show that he is “Coloured”. If he wants a birth certificate for the purposes of being admitted to a school, or for any other purpose, it would be indicated on the certificate that he is “Coloured”. That birth certificate will not show that it has been altered. Therefore it cannot make any difference in the life of that child. The hon. member for Umlazi is dramatizing; he is making a song and dance of something that is quite theoretic. As I have said, this will not make any difference whatsoever.

The hon. member is trying to suggest to this House that a terrible injustice is being perpetrated towards certain children. But let me point out to the hon. member that if it is his intention that on the birth certificates of all those children of parents who had previously been accepted as Coloureds and who succeeded in being reclassified as Whites—which they would not have been able to do if there had not been loopholes in the legislation—there should be an indication that they had been Coloureds, what would the position be then? The hon. member for Durban (North) suggested here yesterday that the witch-hunt, as he calls it, was continuing and that in the future people would be reclassified once again. But, surely, he was trying to convey a wrong impression to this House. After all, the Act states clearly that once the board or a court of law has made a classification—a classification with which we may perhaps not agree because those people concerned managed to do so owing to loopholes in the legislation in question—that classification is final. We cannot go back on that. But now the hon. member for Umlazi wants the birth certificates of the children of parents who succeeded in crossing the colour bar and in being reclassified as White to indicate that they had in the first instance been registered as “Coloured” and that their classification was subsequently altered to “White”. Let me tell him that if he has his way, much more grief will be caused. The hon. member should really be grateful that we are doing these things in order to make the legislation practical. If the hon. member’s opposition to this Bill is motivated by his wish that another Act of Parliament should not be implemented, then he must say so in order that we may know. Since he started to take part in this debate yesterday afternoon, he has not furnished any proof to the effect that he has grounds for his argument.

The hon. member for Parow has illustrated the muddle he and the hon. the Minister are in about this matter. The member for Parow is obsessed, as the hon. the Minister and his Department seem to be, with the Population Registration Act because they believe the definition of a “white person” of that Act is the definition of a “white person”—“finish en klaar”. But that is not the case. The hon. member for Parow kept on saying that the hon. member for Umlazi was talking about “’n Kleurlingman wat bly by sy blanke vrou”. But this begs the question, the question of what is a white person. When we talk about a man and wife the test whether they are white persons must be the test in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, 1949. You have to look at that Act to decide whether in fact they are White. And, indeed, they are White in many of the examples one can give in terms of that Act.

So, the hon. member cannot talk about a Coloured man being married to a white woman —because in order to determine whether that union should take place and whether the should live together as man and wife, you have to apply the test of the Mixed Marriages Act. The hon. member cannot, therefore, talk about “'n man wat’n Kleurling is wat bly by sy blanke vrou”.

That is what the hon. member for Umlazi quoted as an example.

The example quoted by the hon. member for Parow has the following meaning—and I hope the hon. the Minister will listen to this because we hope to get some reply from him.

He will need some help.

Well, the hon. the Minister of Justice is sitting next to him—the right person to give him that help. The example of the hon. member for Parow is one of a Coloured man living with a white woman. Now in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act they are White and therefore lawfully married. If they have a child, he or she must be classified in terms of the Population Registration Act as a Coloured person. So, you have the situation where, in the example given by the hon. member for Parow, two of them are Coloured in terms of the Population Registration Act whereas in terms of the Group Areas Act all three of them are regarded as white persons under a definition different from that of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and the Population Registration Act. Therefore they can live in a white area because in terms of the Group Areas Act they are white people.

So you see Sir, it is not as simple as that. One cannot therefore say that, whatever one has been classified as in terms of the Population Registration Act, that Act determines whether one is White or Coloured or whatever other race. That is exactly what this hon. Minister is now proposing to do in this clause. One has one’s suspicions. One always is a little suspicious as regards legislation dealing with these matters, but one cannot oppose merely on the grounds of suspicions. Our suspicions at the second reading were mere suspicions, as the hon. member for Umlazi said. But the performance yesterday of the hon. the Minister confirmed those suspicions, that in fact what one thought might happen, the hon. the Minister in fact proposes to do. Why does the hon. the Minister want to tie everything to the Population Registration Act? In the circumstances he cannot do it. The definition of a white person even in terms of the Population Registration Act in my short time in this House has changed no less than three times. And every time there is a change, all the provisions are made retrospective. The latest provisions, which are becoming worse and worse and more and more difficult, and in the last example, (bordering on the ludicrous, have been made retrospective.

The question as to what a white person is, is something which this Government determines from time to time in amending its Acts. It determines also in accordance with a different set of criteria for different purposes. Now let us take into consideration what we are dealing with here. Here we have people who are married. They get married in terms of the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. They are white people and are married as white people. One of the purposes and one of the natural results of a marriage is that you have a child. When these people want a marriage certificate, they get one, and the marriage certificate says they are married as white people. Now they go along to the same department, the same Registrar-General, the same official at the counter. and they want a birth certificate for the child born of that marriage in respect of which they have from the same Minister’s Department a certificate to say that they were married and the races of the parents are white. Now the hon. the Minister proposes that if one of them was classified for the purposes of the Population Register as a Coloured person, the child has now to be registered as a Coloured child, the issue of a lawful marriage which complies with the Nationalist Government’s statute requiring that there should be a prohibition of marriages between white and non-white people. What is the purpose of the certificate? It is a record of the birth of a child of a white union. Why must that certificate say that that person is Coloured? This is the point. I hope the hon. the Minister will indicate what he proposes to do. He said very bluntly yesterday that if the position was as I have just indicated, the whole position has to be altered. The Mixed Marriages Act has to be amended. Everything has to comply with the Population Registration Act. Would he like also to give some advice to his other colleague who sits on the bench with him namely the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and the Minister of Planning, that the definition of a white person in terms of the Group Areas Act should also comply with it? These definitions were not lightly arrived at. They were arrived at for specific purposes. The definition that is embodied in the Population Registration Act does not necessarily bear any relation to facts whatsoever in relation to the person who is then being classified. It is not a question of classification; it is a question of whether one is allowed to obtain a certificate to say that the issue from a lawful white marriage is a white person. It is not in terms of the Population Registration Act; that has nothing whatever to do with it. In terms of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, if they are entitled to register a marriage between Whites then surely, in terms of the same Act, they can obtain a registration of their child as a white person. If the hon. the Minister can indicate why this should not be so and what the Population Registration Act has got to do with it at all, we would be very pleased.

This is the position. Rut what did we hear yesterday? The hon. the Minister got up and issued a general warning to the public that, if they want to have children, they have to face the consequences. Has the hon. the Minister reconsidered that statement he made yesterday? I do hope so. I do hope that he will amend it and that he will perhaps withdraw it. How can he say that, if they want to have children, they must face the consequences, when our law says they are white people and they may marry in terms of the statute that prohibits marriages between Whites and non-Whites? How can the hon. the Minister say a thing like that? I hope that he will perhaps deal with the situation. There are different tests in respect of different laws for different purposes. I can think of nothing less appropriate as to the definition of a child of a white marriage than the provisions of the Population Registration Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us some sort of reply. I hope that he has at least looked into both these Acts, something which he had not done yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment; I support the attitude which my hon. friend from Umlazi has taken. But in the absence of an explanation from this hon. Minister there is going to be meted out more harm and more difficulties in terms of these various Acts than we have ever had before.

When the hon. member for Parow can say: “What difference does it make?” then let me ask the hon. member whether it would make a difference to him if his children were registered as Coloureds.

[Inaudible.]

Of course, it would! And this is the whole point, Mr. Speaker. There is a twilight area, an area which, as the then Mr. Justice Fagan so wisely said, of the very Act that we are dealing with, that “the legislature wisely refrained from drawing a dividing line where the Creator had blurred it”. I think this is what the hon. the Minister should bear in mind, and not try to put into pigeon-holes children of a marriage which has been put into a different hole by the laws which exist at this time. The hon. the Minister shows not only ignorance of those laws, but in my submission he shows some contempt for them in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a long speech during the third-reading stage. The Bill was thrashed out fairly well in the Committee Stage and it is quite clear to me where the differences lie between the speakers opposite and those on the Government side, and what the basis is of the objections raised to this Bill by hon. members opposite. The mistake they are making is that they think that this Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Amendment Bill is a Population Registration Bill. If this amendment Bill we are discussing here is adopted, it would mean only one thing: Not that the child is being classified now, since the classification takes place in terms of the Population Registration Act and not in terms of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act; the only thing which is being set right here, is faulty inscriptions in the births register. [Interjection.] I shall explain it. Those mistakes must be put right, amended and replaced by an inscription reflecting the correct factual position. That correct factual position relates to the classification of his parents. This is where the Population Registration Act is applicable. It must relate to the race classification of the parents in terms of the Population Registration Act, because if it does not relate to that, those facts are wrong and the facts on that birth certificate will have no legal status. I fail to understand why hon. members on the Opposition side are pleading that one should have a wrong entry on one’s birth certificate and not the correct one.

That is not true.

That is what the hon. member for Umlazi is advocating. He says that it should not be altered “because it will cause hardship”. Then he quoted instances where, in terms of the Mixed Marriages Act, people were married by a marriage officer in terms of the provisions of that Act, which has nothing to do with my Act at all. The hon. member for Durban (North), as well as the hon. member for Umlazi, says that there are such cases where a non-white person marries a white person …

No!

Yes, where a non-white person marries a white person. Because, if both of them are white persons, the Marriage Act provides that they are married. But the fact that I am a married man, has not made me White or Black.

But he was married as a white person.

Whether I am married or unmarried has nothing to do with my race classification, because the hon. member himself was classified as a white person, and if he had only married after 1951, he would already have been classified as a white person prior to his marriage. That does not enter into the matter at all. What does in fact enter into the matter, is the following: If the hon. member were to say that I or the Government is not going far enough and that we should also review the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and bring it into line with the correct provisions and the Population Registration Act, that the Minister of Justice should go into the matter to see whether there is a possibility of eliminating in the future all marriages between people belonging to the white race group and people belonging to the non-white race groups, then I would say that he has an argument. But because he claims that such things happen in terms of the Group Areas and other legislation, he wants us to have no population registration at all. If we do not have population registration, on what will hon. members opposite base the representation in Parliament which they want to grant the non-Whites? How are they going to compile separate voters’ rolls without any population registration? Simply by judging on the face of it? Are they going to open mouths, extract teeth, are they going back on the history of the people? What are they going to do?

No. Mr. Speaker, the position is as follows: The Population Registration Act provides explicitly—and this is one of the clauses which is so binding and in regard to which they are complaining that we have changed it—that if the parents of a child belong to the same race group, in that they have already been classified as members of that same group, such a child cannot, if they are his natural parents, belong to a race group other than that of his parents. The Act also provides explicitly that, if a child is born out of a marriage, i.e. a child whose parents do not belong to the same race group, such a child cannot be a white person. The only thing we want to do here, is not to allow the registrar of births, when people notify him of the birth of a child and declare that they are white persons, simply to accept their word for it and then to record their race as White.

They were married as white persons.

We say that the registrar of births should make sure of those facts before he records the race of such a child on the birth information form. Listen to the example the hon. member quoted in that regard. He says: Oh, it will be terrible that it can now happen that the children of people who were married as white persons—they were not White, but the marriage made them White— cannot, in the view of the Minister, be White if both of them have been classified and do not belong to the same race group, in terms of the amendments to the Population Registration Act. But the hon. member has forgotten how many people, when they registered their children, gave their race as “Coloured”. The hon. member for Parow also mentioned it. In terms of the reclassifications which took place according to the old formulas—in the first instance for many years according to appearance only, and according to the second formula, in terms of appearance and association —both parents of those children have now been reclassified and declared to be white persons. The race of those children is still recorded on the birth certificate as being Coloured. Does he not have any sympathy with those children? I shall remedy their position.

But only for the purposes of a marriage.

No. The hon. member only complains when a person who has unlawfully been accepted as a white person is declared to be a Coloured. He complains when those facts are correct and are entered on his birth certificate. But if one makes the mistake of recording on a person’s birth certificate his race as White when such a person is actually a Coloured, then he has no objection to it, because then one is supposedly doing a good thing; one is helping him. That is the only reason he mentions, and for that reason one may not have such a law, because then one would be attaching a stigma to that child if his classification corresponds with that of his parents. This is so ridiculous to me, Mr. Speaker, that I really do not have any answer to it other than the following: If the classification is made, it is made in terms of the Population Registration Act. All the clauses and all the determining factors will then be taken into account, and even if the entry on his birth certificate is faulty, it still has nothing to do with his classification. But if it is entered correctly it will have the same effects as it will have when it is entered incorrectly. Now the following question is asked: Why not correctly, why incorrectly? That is the whole question. We say that it is being corrected in this way, and the hon. gentlemen opposite want to drag politics into it and make the world believe that we are conducting a witch-hunt and dragging sinister ulterior motives into the matter. I do not think that that ruse will be successful.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

This Bill is actually twofold in nature. In the first place it is being introduced to eliminate certain shortcomings and close certain loopholes which have come to light in the Community Development Act in the course of time, thereby to improve the administration of the Act. Secondly, it deals with the control of the licensing of disqualified persons in group areas and with the issuing of trading licences to qualified persons in designated group areas.

I shall first deal with those clauses relating to the elimination of shortcomings and loopholes occurring in the Act. Clause 1 deals with the ownership of affected properties. The owner may claim all the benefits of depreciation contributions if the property concerned was owned by a disqualified person at the basic date, i.e. prior to the proclamation. This fact is also very clearly stated in the Act in respect of ownership by individuals. In respect of ownership by companies the concept “basic date” was inadvertently omitted from the original legislation; this has caused confusion and is now being rectified.

In terms of section 20 the Community Development Board is exempt from a variety of commitments, inter alia the payment of endowment fees in respect of lots subdivided and developed by the Board for sale mainly to the group of persons in the lower and lower middle income groups, specifically so that the land prices will not be increased unnecessarily to the detriment of these persons. From subsection (2) it must be clear to everyone that as far as the spirit of the exemptions in this section is concerned, the Administrator will only be consulted in respect of the provisions of a town planning scheme and the subdivision of land, matters which were included in the subsequently passed Removal of Restrictions Act with the general approval of all the provinces, and which in any case means that it will also be possible to amend these provisions. With the co-operation of local authorities very good progress has in fact been made with the implementation of section 20, but it now appears that in respect of one specific area the payment of endowment fees was imposed under a local authority ordinance, and in terms of the present wording of section 20, endowment fees will in this case now have to be paid by the Community Development Board upon the subdivision and development of land, which increases the land prices concerned and will place a burden which is specifically meant to be avoided, on the shoulders of the low-paid groups. The object of the proposed amendment is merely to bring the position in this case into line with what already applies in the rest of the Republic.

The next amendment relates to the fact that the Community Development Board and a local authority may enter into an agreement whereby the local authority performs the functions and exercises the powers of the Community Development Board in certain areas, subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon. In the Republic there are only a few local authorities which have entered into such delegation agreements with my Department.

In terms of the present provisions of section 22 the Community Development Board may, when such an agreement has been entered into and its powers and functions have been delegated to the local authority in respect of an area, not itself also exercise some of its functions in that area. It is then altogether powerless with regard to that area. The fact that, as the Act now stands, the Community Development Board itself no longer retains any powers when it has delegated its powers to a local authority, has a detrimental effect on the development of that area and also has a restrictive and burdensome effect on persons who have to be settled there. Let me mention an example: The Development Board is thereby prohibited from granting individual building loans for the erection of dwellings in such areas, and the Community Development Board is also prohibited from assisting with the development by itself acquiring and developing land in such areas. It consequently places a heavy burden on the local authority concerned, which makes it more difficult for development to take place there. The proposed amendment only envisages making it possible for the Development Board, after consultation with the local authority, to participate in such areas, for example by granting loans to individuals and itself assisting in the development and erection of dwellings. This is therefore only to make it possible, where delegated powers have been given to the local authority, for the Community Development Board to be given the power to assist, after consultation and agreement with the local authority.

Originally the former Group Areas Development Act provided that a property becomes an affected property either as a result of disqualified ownership or, in the case of qualified ownership, through occupation by a disqualified person. Subsequent amendments to the law altered the position so that a property was not affected purely as a result of disqualified occupation. It can now be affected as a result of disqualified occupation only if the qualified owner applies for it to be affected. In terms of section 29 of the Act a list of affected properties must be drawn up in respect of each area, and the information to be contained in this list is specified in the Act. One of the items of information which the list must contain is the name of the occupant and the group to which he belongs. Because mere occupation is no longer a reason for a property to be affected, it is no longer necessary for the list to contain this information. The socio-economic surveys which are made contain this information in any case should a qualified owner request that this property be regarded as affected as a result of disqualified occupation. At present, however, this information must still be included in the list. This only results in valuable working hours being wasted in my Department, and in fact it serves no purpose. The purpose of clause 4 is to eliminate this unnecessary obligation which rests on my Department.

The purpose of clause 5 ought to be evident. Cases occur where the basic value of land has been determined with due regard to fact that there are, for example, gravel deposits, natural forests or building sand on the land which can be exploited, factors which influence the value of that property. But then the owners sell that gravel, or chop the trees down and sell them, or sell the building sand, after the basic value has been determined. Thereby they adversely affect the value of that property—and the effect can be quite substantial. The result is that the Board is powerless with regard to the depreciation contribution which it subsequently has to pay in terms of the provisions of the Act. The proposed insertion only brings such cases into line with what is already happening in respect of buildings or other improvements on such properties. Last year, in the interest of the development of certain areas, we accepted a provision (section 32 (10)) in terms of which disqualified owners are prohibited from effecting extensions or additions to their buildings or from erecting new buildings on affected land without the prior written approval of the Community Development Board, because section 27 (1) and section 27 (3) of the Group Areas Act provide that upon affected properties being acquired by disqualified persons by testamentary disposition, such properties must be realized within one year, unless the estate is authorized by permit to hold such properties for a longer period. It was not considered necessary at the time to include estates in the new provision. The present position, however, is that if such permits are granted to estates, permits to hold such properties for longer than one year, there is nothing which prohibits those estates from changing or enlarging the affected buildings or even from erecting new buildings in conflict with the provisions of section 32 (10), that is to say, without the permission of the Community Development Board. Naturally it can at present be done within the period of one year. To ensure that the intention of section 32 (10) is carried out as far as possible, we shall not be able to grant any permission to any estate to retain such a property for longer than one year. If we do, there will be many cases where estates will be very adversely affected, but in practice it is often not possible to relinquish a property within one year. The alternative is to treat estates in the same way as disqualified persons. Then it would be easier for me to grant permits for an extension of the period. This then is the object of this amendment.

I now come to clause 6 undoubtedly the most important provision in this Bill. It is altogether a new provision. The object of the Group Areas Act is to resettle the various communities in their own areas, and to build up balanced communities in those areas with their own services, etc.—diversified communities. As a result of such development, new trading potential develops in such a group area, for example, one for Coloureds or for Indians. With regard to the issuing of licences for the exploitation of that new trading potential, neither my Department nor I have any say as regards to whom such licences are granted. The result is that that new trading potential can be exploited by new entrants to trade and that consequently we cannot employ that trading potential in that group area profitably for the resettlement of disqualified dealers; in other words, those persons who are still in other group areas. This is one of the tasks which we must gradually undertake. Another problem is that a disqualified person can apply for such a licence. The authority which must grant that licence cannot have recourse to the race of such a person. All it must decide is whether it is necessary to issue a licence or not. Consequently it often happens that disqualified persons obtain a licence to establish a new undertaking in a group area which is being developed for another race, and thereafter apply for a permit of occupation. In other words, such a person first establishes himself in an unlawful manner and then applies to me for a permit. Then I have to refuse that application. I think that this procedure is wrong. I cannot condone unlawful occupation merely by granting such a person a permit. What I now propose to do is to compel the licensing authority to require a disqualified person applying for a trading licence first to submit a certificate either from myself or from a person authorized by me in which must be indicated whether he is in fact going to obtain a permit for occupation. There are many cases in which we do grant such permits, but then the applicant must first determine whether he can in fact obtain such a permit. Thereafter he can apply for a licence. It is of course the initial issuing of a licence which is affected here.

But now there are, say, in a white group area, disqualified traders who have to renew their licences from time to time. It is our task to settle such dealers in their own areas as possibilities can be created there for them. Therefore I am asking for a twofold power here—firstly, to designate a group area by proclamation in the Gazette, a group area in which a licence cannot be issued to anyone who has not been approved by my Department or by me. The intention is to give preference to disqualified traders in other group areas so that we may allow the trading potential in their own areas to be utilized for their benefit. When such a trader moves from a disqualified area to his own area and obtains a licence to establish his business there. I want the power at the same time to notify the licensing authority that that person’s trading licence will not be renewed in the area in which he is disqualified. In other words, it is a process by which I want to utilize the trading potential which is developing very rapidly in group areas now. to the benefit of the disqualified persons in that community who are in the other areas. It must be remembered that we have many areas in which the disqualified traders in declared group areas are in the position that they simply do not know how long they are still going to remain there. No improvements are made to their buildings. Many of their premises are in an extremely poor condition and should actually be declared slums in terms of the Slums Act. Because they have no rights of ownership in an area where they are disqualified persons, or because they have no certainty as regards future ownership there—they do not know how long they can remain there—they do not improve their premises. I now want to make use of the trading potential which is developing in their own areas in order to provide a better future for these people, who are in fact in a difficult position and without an assured future in the disqualified area. I want to give them preference in the issuing of licences in their own areas, instead of giving the new entrants to the trade an opportunity of snapping up the trading potential in that new group area and obtaining it for their own purposes. In other words, I do not want to allow further large-scale expansion in trade or the development of large monopolistic organizations which simply buy up all the trading premises and then speculate with them. I want to stop them, and to utilize the potential existing there, for the benefit of the disqualified traders who are at present in disqualified group areas.

It is therefore apparent that we are taking a very important step here. I think that this will enable me to eliminate the large-scale uncertainty existing in connection with trading operations as well as the inconvenience and the lack of security suffered by these people, and, without depriving traders of their livelihood, to set in motion a systematic, gradual process of proper resettlement which will prevent the opportunities which exist for resettling them from passing into the hands of other persons so that we can do nothing about the matter.

What would be the alternative if I did not do this? The alternative would be that I myself should buy up all the trading premises in the non-White group areas through the Community Development Board, that I myself should develop them and determine to whom the business undertakings would be let. In doing so, I would not afford the qualified dealer in that area the opportunity of erecting a building of his own, such as he deems fit, with his own capital there. I would have to act in that way in order to maintain control over what persons I send there. But I should not like to do that. I want to give to the disqualified traders who are in the declared group areas an opportunity of themselves taking up business premises and of developing their own interests. But at the same time they must be persons who can be taken there from the areas in which they are disqualified. In other words, I do not want to interfere with the basic right of licensing authorities to grant licences; I am not interfering with that in any way. I am only interfering with the right of a person to trade in an area in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. I think this is a logical step which flows from the way in which we apply the Group Areas Act.

These are the most important provisions in this connection and I sincerely hope that hon. members will consider them in the light of this approach and not drag in other unrelated matters. I trust that they will examine the matter closely and treat it on its merits, and will view it as an honest step to grant the disqualified dealers, who are passing through an unhappy period, an opportunity in the future. It is to assist them that this measure is being introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I am quite moved by the emotional appeal, if I may call it that, of the hon. the Minister for support for this particular measure, but right at the outset I wish to inform him that I rise to oppose this Bill. Unfortunately, as an Opposition, we have to deal with the facts of the Bill. Whilst I can have quite a lot of sympathy for certain of the opinions the Minister has just given us the benefit of, I am afraid that this Bill is to me just another example of this creeping autocracy that is coming more and more into our lives. Once legislation of this kind has been passed, it has to march forward all the time, and every little snag that is encountered requires more and more legislation of this type which results in more and more inroads into the rights of local authorities and the ordinary lives of ordinary people. It demands inroads into the system which we have obeyed, worked and lived peacefully under for so many years. This system is to be altered because of legislation of this kind.

It is rather interesting that at the end of his speech the hon. the Minister gave us an alternative. What is the difference between the alternative and what is contemplated in clause 6 of the Bill? There is no difference at all. What it means is that this Minister is now going to take over the complete planning, the complete control and the entire issuing of licences.

That is not correct.

Hear that little whisper which says, “Dit is nie so nie.”

But it is not correct.

This hon. member has probably been misled by the fact that there is an amendment on the Order Paper.

It is very clear.

The hon. member can make his speech just now but I will reply to his interjection now. There is an amendment on the Order Paper, but what does it mean? It does not mean a thing. We will discuss it when we come to the Committee Stage. It does not alter at this stage what is contained in the Bill before us.

It is not a different principle; the amendment is only for clarity’s sake.

Yes. The position is quite simple. I accept that this Bill in its present form contains some clauses which are purely of an administrative nature, and, indeed, this side agrees with some of them because we want to see the measure working. It is law, it has to be carried out. and we on this side feel that where relief can be given we will support the Bill. We will indicate that during the Committee Stage.

The Minister explained clause 2 of this Bill to us, and he makes it sound so simple. But what does one see if one reads the Bill? We see the boards will be exempt from the provisions of any ordinance. It does not say the boards will be exempt from what I think is called endowment fees. It does not say that at all. It says the Minister is now going to be exempt from the provisions of any ordinance. I question whether local health commissions, for instance, are not established by ordinance. Do they not work under a provincial ordinance? In the Transvaal we have the periurban areas health boards which might well operate under a Transvaal ordinance, so that everything they do is by virtue of an ordinance. I do not think those boards have any powers of their own but their powers derive from the provincial council. I want to question here whether this amendment is just the simple thing the hon. the Minister pretended it to be during his second-reading speech.

I want to go on to clause 6 because I think this is the crux of this Bill. We on this side are going to oppose this measure largely because of this clause because it introduces into the application of group areas legislation an entirely new principle. This clause is divided into three parts, and they, roughly speaking, give the Minister three different powers. The first part allows the Minister to control the issue of certain trading licences contemplated in Part I of the Second Schedule to the Licences Act. Another part authorizes him to control the renewal of Licences, and the third part allows him by notice to stop the granting of licences of a particular kind. These are wide, indeed sweeping powers, which the Minister is asking for. That is why we on this side are opposing this clause. There is just no limitation here. As this Bill now reads, it is clear there is no limitation whatsoever on the exercise of the Minister’s powers. The hon. the Minister is not confined to any particular area. Even if one takes into consideration his amendment. which will be considered later, it does not much alter the position, because many group areas have already been proclaimed and the field is therefore almost as wide as ever. It is rather interesting, too, that group areas have largely been proclaimed in the areas of existing local authorities who are responsible for the issue of trade licences.

I want to make another point here before I go any further. The thinking behind this clause worries me.

Everything worries you!

Whoever drew up this Bill went to the trouble of making certain exemptions.

[Inaudible.]

Oh, will you stop mumbling; I am making a speech.

Order!

The following items have been exempted from the operation of this particular clause: Items 5, 12, 16 and 19 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Licences Act of 1962. It is rather interesting to look up these items to see what they are. I do not know why someone took the trouble to insert this part into the clause. I am going to quote those sections just to illustrate to this House the thinking behind this Bill. The Minister is asking for power to control the issue of all licences to all people, and I think he will agree with me that in most cases it is the issue of licences to non-white people that is affected. However, he exempts bunch buyers, hawkers, ostrich feather buyers, and also pedlars.

What about rag and bone dealers?

Yes, the Minister forgot that one. What about bottle buyers? From the whole list of occupations set out in the second Schedule—and it is a long schedule, Sir—these particular four occupations have been picked. What sort of mind selects four occupations of this nature and what can possibly be the reason? I put it to the House that this is the thinking behind this new development in the group areas legislation. I want to say it with emphasis, because listening to the hon. the Minister here this morning I have been convinced that this measure is a substitute for planning of the right kind. It is a substitute for proper coordination of effort and it is also a substitute for co-operation with the local authority concerned.

Let us see how this can be avoided. It cannot be avoided by the alternative put forward by the Minister, namely that he will then have to take all the business stands in the different places and allocate them himself. He is already doing just that under the Act, so it is really no alternative. I can assure hon. members of that. He is now doing that without buying the stands, without taking the trouble, because he is letting somebody else finance the stands. But he is going to issue the licences, so who will have the control of the stands any way? The hon. the Minister, of course. So whether he buys the stands or not does not make any difference at all. Therefore I say what the Minister called an alternative is not an alternative at all.

Let us see what the alternative really is. This, in my opinion, and I thought of this while the Minister was speaking, surely is proper planning at the proper time. If the Minister is looking for an alternative I suggest he investigate my suggestion. When the Minister proclaims a group area surely he knows what he wants to do with it, or does he? He knows what class of person, what race group will he going there. He knows over what period roughly he is going to rebuild and re-equip it and move the people in there. Surely his planning is sufficiently ahead and sufficiently “with it” to know exactly where he wants business stands, because he has passed urban renewal schemes. All these things link together. He has the power to clear up any slums in the group area which he has proclaimed; he has the power to embark upon an urban renewal scheme; he has the power at the moment to do anything. He is exempt from all the provisions of township regulations relating to the subdivision of land, the type of building that must be erected, etc. Everything that local and provincial authorities provide for he is already exempt from. So he has no excuses whatsoever. Over the years how many times have we not dealt with measures when the Minister and his predecessor came here and said, “I am being frustrated by a local authority, I will hammer them into submission, I will make them do this, that and the other”, and he has done it. He did all that until in 1966 he felt they had it all tied up and he consolidated the Act. Thank goodness he did, because it was such a jungle nobody could really understand it anyway. Yet, here we are again. Here we are asked to amend the consolidated Act. Why? We will continue to be asked to amend it if this is the approach to the implementation of group areas. So long as this is the approach to and the mentality behind the legislation, we will continue to have amendments. We cannot avoid them. People are rapidly beginning to think that if troubles are experienced in implementing a scheme, all that is needed is to pass another law. This is not the first time I have said this in connection with Group Areas Amendment Bills. It is not the first time at all, and it will not be the last time either. The remedy for these troubles is not the passing of further legislation but rather to come to grips with the problem and face the facts. What are the facts?

We face the facts when we make amendments. Legislation cannot be perfect. We cannot foresee all the snags that crop up.

Well, you have had long enough. This interjection is interesting. The Minister by his interjection confirms all the things I have said about this Bill.

You do not want to do anything about the snags; I at least want to do something to improve matters.

No, that is not true. I believe as I stand here that the Minister has too many powers already. As I said, he is exempt from every ordinance of every local and provincial authority. He is exempted from all the requirements which they enforce. He therefore has a free hand. Although he might not own all the land, when he moves into a group area and proclaims it, he has absolute control of that area. The only thing he does not have control of is the licences. But surely to goodness he has had sufficient co-operation in the past from the local authorities concerned not to have to come to Parliament with legislation of this kind. I believe he can achieve his objective by proper consultation and cooperation. In fact, I am sure he can. If he is going to apply the Slums Act, the urban renewals scheme and the Group Areas Act to an area he has proclaimed, then he can achieve every objective because the Minister can decide where in fact the business sites are going. He does not have to ask anybody else. He replans the area and he can say that business sites will go in a special part of this area and that he will not have them scattered far and wide in this group area.

He had one problem, I admit, such as he has at Paarl, where everybody trades around the perimeter of the group area and they take the cream off the milk before the poor Coloured people can get it. That I accept, but he is not doing anything about that; he is only controlling it inside, and he is controlling it in regard to one person as against another. This is what he is going to do, and he is going to limit the number of licences, and he is not going to make provision for certain types of licences, if I am not mistaken.

But I am getting away from my point. My point is that this Minister can dictate what trading sites there will be and where they will be situated. Sir, I would like to know which local authorities would not like to cooperate in better town planning of that nature. I would like to find out which local authorities, if any, would not co-operate on the issue of licences. And we must remember that the hon. the Minister has the right to object to the issue of licences, the same as anybody else. He can object to the issue of licences; anybody can do that. But the hon. the Minister has not investigated this means of co-operation. He has not thought, apparently, of properly planning an area. He has just thought of passing a law and saying: I will decide that that will be that and this will be for something else, and I will decide how many traders will go into that area. In terms of this Bill the Minister must decide how many of each type of trader will go into the area. Now, what experience does this Minister have to make a decision of that kind? What right has he to do it? In my opinion, he has no right at all, because he has no experience of the needs of communities in regard to trading. He has never planned a Johannesburg to know what trading licences are necessary. Why, all of a sudden now, has this Minister become an authority? He may laugh, but let him answer this.

It is just another form of concession.

Let him tell me what particular experience equips him to control utterly the issue of all trading licences, except for bunch buyers, etc.? Let him tell me what experience he and his Department have behind them which will put them into a position best to control the issue of those licences, rather than the local authorities. I am utterly against it, because he will come up against certain snags. Take the case of chemists and druggists. There will not be enough qualified persons to go into that area. I accept that people will have to get permits in terms of the Group Areas Act from the Minister to occupy the premises, but to whom is he going to give that right? This Minister now has the right to say: You thought you were going into that area, but I am giving it to somebody else. You see, Sir, this is a monopoly that the Minister is taking, and monopolies are dangerous things. When one man has a right to grant a licence and make it a monopoly, that is against all the accepted principles of trading and of the issue of licences. At the moment one can object to the issue of a licence on the grounds that it will lead to over-trading.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

1. (1) the periodical outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in South Africa and South West Africa;
2. (2) the threat of foot-and-mouth disease, as well as other virus diseases, from neighbouring territories and the rest of Africa; and
3. (3) the consequent threat to the country’s economy,

In the wake of the latest outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in England, one which is assuming tremendous proportions, one has come to realize anew the danger to which livestock is exposed when threatened by this disease and the consequent danger to the agricultural industry as well as the national economy specifically. In the years 1922, 1923 and 1924 Britain experienced a similar outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease and at that time approximately 273,000 head of cattle were destroyed,but this recent outbreak is occurring on a much larger scale. Even at this stage approximately 300,000 animals have been destroyed and the cost thereof to Britain in direct compensation amounts to approximately £20 million or R40 million. This is the amount of direct expenditure only. In fact, indirect expenditure cannot be estimated properly, because it is very difficult to do so, but we know that Britain is a country which exports stud animals. Britain’s annual export of stud animals amounts to approximately R10 million. This side of the business, too, has naturally been affected by the disease, but because foot-and-mouth disease is not endemic in England and because this infection has been imported from abroad, measures have been taken also in respect of all imports of meat from countries where this disease occurs periodically. Consequently also South Africa has fallen a victim to this and the export of our meat to Britain has been discontinued. In this way also this country is being affected when there is an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in other parts of the world. Mindful of this and of the fact that foot-and-mouth disease occurs in South Africa and in South West Africa from time to time as well as in some of our neighbouring territories, one comes to realize the consequent danger of this disease to the livestock of this country and to our economy. As this motion reads, the most important and immediate request is the desired research institute for virus diseases and the solving of the problems of foot-and-mouth disease. But this is not all. Also included in this are the basic principles of virology and immunology which are of vital importance to the protection and development of our entire country’s livestock. In order to motivate this request of mine properly, I should like to divide it into five main points.

Firstly, I should like to outline the background of virus diseases which threaten us and to which also this country is subject. The other points with which I should like to deal are, secondly, the areas in which foot-and-mouth disease usually occurs, how often it occurs and how it is being spread; thirdly, the consequent threat to the agricultural industry in this country and how this disease may affect our exports; fourthly, the direct and indirect costs of foot-and-mouth disease and the existing methods of combating this disease; and fifthly, the success already achieved by the division of veterinary services in the field of vaccine preparation and immunization against those diseases which threaten our country.

The following is the background. Various kinds of virus diseases are found in South Africa. The best-known of these are bluetongue, horsesickness, three-day stiffsickness, Rift Valley fever, Wesselsbron disease as well as foot-and-mouth disease. Diseases such as Rift Valley fever and Wesselsbron disease made their first appearance in Southern Africa only a few years ago. These were unknown diseases, but it proves that we are subject to these known virus diseases and that they may appear here at any time. One of the best-known diseases for which we must be on the alert is rinderpest. At present it is confined to Central Africa. In addition there are other virus diseases, such as lung disease and sheep pox which are found in Central Africa and in several of these African countries these diseases are endemic in their game. Consequently the possibility exists that these diseases may spread to South Africa and South West Africa at any time when conditions are favourable. This also brings me to foot-and-mouth disease, which occurs in South Africa and South West Africa from time to time. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I have to take you back to a time before the outbreak of rinderpest, but I truly think that it will be relevant to do so to-day. We know that foot-and-mouth disease was found in all four provinces of South Africa, prior to the outbreak of rinderpest in 1896. Subsequent to that it completely disappeared from Southern Africa for several years.

The first time it reappeared was in Rhodesia in 1931 from where it spread to Botswana and from Botswana it spread to South Africa. There are at present several main types of the foot-and-mouth disease virus which have already been typed. The best-known ones are the A, the O and the C types which are known as the European virus types. The S.A.T 1, 2 and 3 types are found in Southern Africa, and then there still is the Asian 1 type. These South African types, the S.A.T. 1, 2 and 3 types, have occurred here on several occasions, but we find that some of the European types, such as the A type, have also occurred in some of our neighbouring territories such as Angola. Foot-and-mouth disease is, of course, spread by animals with cloven hooves. Where does foot-and-mouth disease chiefly occur? As I have already said, foot-and-mouth disease occurred in Rhodesia after 1931, from where it spread to Botswana and from Botswana it spread to South Africa. Numerous outbreaks have subsequently been experienced in South Africa. These outbreaks chiefly occurred on our international borders as well as in neighbouring territories, but they occurred inside South Africa on three occasions. In 1933 an outbreak occurred at Germiston, in 1938 in Natal and in 1957 on the Witwatersrand. The origin of all these outbreaks was in Botswana, in other words, in one of our neighbouring territories. As regards South West Africa, eight outbreaks occurred there as against the said 18 outbreaks which occurred in South Africa after 1931. These outbreaks in South West Africa also occurred chiefly on the borders of the neighbouring territories, but two outbreaks penetrated into the interior of South West Africa. In fact, in our neighbouring territories such as Botswana, Malawi, Rhodesia, Angola and Mozambique there have been numerous outbreaks we know about, but we must accept that in addition to those there have been numerous outbreaks we do not know about. Thus we find that the territories further north, such as Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda, are likewise subject to infection.

The problem of foot-and-mouth disease in Southern Africa is being further complicated by the presence in these parts of large numbers of game which carry this disease. How this disease originates amongst game and is being transmitted to domestic animals has not been investigated and determined properly as yet. Consequently this is a basic subject for vigorous research. This disease represents a tremendous threat to the agricultural industry in our country as well as to our exports. It is virtually unnecessary to point out all the consequent dangers for our country and to indicate what a serious threat it is to our livestock, but I should like to do so on the basis of a few figures relating to stock. In South Africa and South West Africa there are approximately 14 million head of cattle, including those of the Bantu, and there are approximately 44 million sheep, six and a half million goats and one and a half million pigs. According to research conducted into agricultural marketing, the gross value of stock production in South Africa, and I am referring to meat, dairy produce, etc., in the first place, was plus-minus R339 million. These are the latest available figures. The gross value of wool, mohair and furs, which are other animal products, was R109 million, a total therefore of approximately R450 million. According to this research into agricultural marketing our stock represents a capital asset of R1,070 million. These figures give us an indication of the threat and of what is being threatened. The controlled areas with the largest consumption of meat are Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, etc., and 50 per cent of the animals slaughtered in these controlled areas come from these neighbouring territories which are periodically threatened by foot-and-mouth disease. If a serious epidemic were to break out and if all these neighbouring territories were to become infected, even if the disease did not spread further to the rest of South Africa or South West Africa, it would mean that the consumer would have to pay much more for meat, because in that case restrictions would be imposed in respect of stock entering the controlled areas.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the exports of this country; my colleague who is going to follow me in this debate, will make specific reference to that matter, but I just want to point out that the international fear of foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and lung disease is such that the presence of any of these diseases in our country can have very adverse effects on our agricultural export trade and, of course, on our national economy. Trade restrictions in respect of foot-and-mouth disease affect not only animals and animal products, but also other agricultural products. All agricultural products exported from South Africa must be certified by the division of veterinary services.

When one thinks in terms of the cost of combating foot-and-mouth disease and in terms of control measures in this regard, the question occurs to one why, in view of the fact that this disease appears in virtually all parts of the world from time to time, all international restrictions are not raised so that, we may export freely. This will have the effect that the financial implications it entails, the inconvenience and all other matters incidental thereto, will disappear immediately. It is unlikely, however, that something like this will be accepted by the rest of the world, because no country will be able to afford the devastation of numerous outbreaks which may occur in large areas at any time or the dangers which will follow if it becomes a local disease in that country. This disease has cost the countries of the world countless millions, not only in money but also in potential revenue and trade losses. It is difficult to determine the exact costs involved in controlling and combating this disease and what it has already cost South Africa and South West Africa, but I should like to mention in brief the direct expenditure in order to illustrate how much has been spent on getting this disease under control and on protecting our livestock. The direct expenditure incurred in South Africa up to now is R4,200,000; R870,000 has been spent on fencing and the annual cost of exercising control is plus-minus R52,000. A considerably larger amount has been spent in South West Africa. The cost of getting the disease under control during the one large outbreak in 1961-’63 which paralysed virtually the entire territory, exceeded R5 million. A vaccination campaign was started there and this took a very long time. More than two million head of cattle, 900,000 goats and 1 million sheep were vaccinated. The direct expenditure incurred in South West Africa in respect of control amounts to R5,600,000; the erection of fences for controlling the disease and trying to keep the disease out, cost approximately R2 million, and the current annual cost of control is R170,000. Hon. members can therefore see that some millions have been spent in combating this disease in South Africa and in South West Africa, and then I am referring to direct costs only. It is difficult to gauge the indirect costs. I cannot describe the inconvenience it causes and the frustration it brings about amongst farmers when this disease goes hand in hand with a drought. Hon. members who represent such districts will probably refer to that after I have spoken.

There are several methods which are being followed at present for controlling and combating foot-and-mouth disease. The one method which is well-known is to throw a cordon round the area and to discontinue the export of stock and to await the disappearance of the disease. A second method is to build up anti-bodies in healthy animals toy infecting them with active viruses. The third is the slaughtering method which is at present being employed in England and which is in fact a very expensive method. If we were to employ this method in South Africa, it would cost the country even many millions more to control the disease. The fourth is the newer idea of vaccination or immunization. Vaccination has been applied with success, particularly in South West Africa, and it is also a much cheaper method of controlling the disease. But at present we are faced with the problem that South Africa cannot manufacture this vaccine. If foot-and-mouth disease were to break out in any area in South Africa or South West Africa, we would be faced with the further problem of being unable to type that virus locally. It would have to be sent to Pirbright in England where virus typing is done and where vaccines are prepared. Mr. Speaker, if this dangerous disease breaks out here and one can neither type the virus here nor prepare the necessary vaccine, one is extremely vulnerable. This brings me to the success which has already been achieved by the South African division of veterinary services in the field of immunization and vaccine preparation. I have no doubt whatsoever, particularly if one has regard to the great things Onderstepoort has already achieved in respect of the typing of various stock diseases and the preparation of vaccines, that our researchers will be capable of producing an effective vaccine and/or oral remedy for immunization against foot-and-mouth disease, provided they have the necessary facilities at their disposal. Where we are proud to-day of what a Dr. Barnard has done for mankind, I think it appropriate for us to be equally proud of what Onderstepoort has already done for the stock farmer in this country. To-day one likes to refer to the vaccine which Onderstepoort prepares and to the research work being conducted there not only in the interests of the South African farmer, but one likes to refer to the fact that some of those vaccines and the results of that research work are being used all over the world and particularly in the rest of Africa. Last year a record was set there as far as the preparation of vaccines was concerned. A record number of 103,375,000 doses of vaccine was manufactured and several million doses of that vaccine were forwarded to other countries in Africa for combating diseases in those countries. As far as the typing of the bluetongue virus is concerned, South Africa is recognized by the world at present as the leading authority. New techniques are being developed for the typing of virus groups and the determination of neutralizing anti-bodies.

To summarize, foot-and-mouth disease is one of the best examples of an international disease against which all countries are on their guard and in respect of which they do not hesitate to take all the necessary restricting, and I almost feel like saying, discriminatory, measures in order to protect themselves against infection. This also applies to South Africa. When any of the neighbouring territories is hit by foot-and-mouth disease, our doors are closed to those people. They may not market their stock here and no movement of stock Whatsoever is allowed. It is very clear to us and we must accept that the agricultural industry of South Africa and South West Africa are being threatened by foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest and lung disease from neighbouring territories in the rest of Africa. Circumstances in Africa and the presence of these diseases in numerous countries in Africa are a constant threat to the livestock of this country. The international trade prestige of infected countries automatically slumps to such a level that it assumes very serious economic proportions and at the same time has other economic implications. Sir, it may rightly be said that every successful attempt at combating foot-and-mouth disease may be regarded as the salvation of the stock farmer. As I have already indicated, the cost of combating these diseases is tremendously high. Several million has been spent on combating these diseases. The safest and the cheapest way, as in the case of all other diseases, is immunization. Prevention is better than cure. Sufficient research has not yet been conducted into the question of how this disease continues to prevail amongst game nor into the way in which it is being transmitted to domestic animals. Research ought to be conducted in order to ascertain which are the most favourable climatic conditions for this virus. It is said that this virus spreads much more easily in cold, wet conditions, but the contrary has also been proved in practice, namely that this virus becomes activated under conditions of drought and spreads at a tremendously rapid rate. It has been proved that either vaccine or an oral remedy can be successfully employed in preventing foot-and-mouth disease and that it is much cheaper to employ this method than it is to slaughter stock or to employ any of the other methods of combating it.

South Africa is the only country in Africa which has the financial means and the scientific ability to undertake the services to which I have referred, also in respect of the other dangerous stock diseases. Apart from providing better protection for our own livestock and economy and bringing about a considerable saving eventually, South Africa can make a vital contribution to the combating and stamping out of these dreaded diseases in our neighbouring states as well as in the rest of Africa.

With this, I think, I have sufficiently motivated the general value to South Africa of such a research institute. Of course, one realizes that the Government is holding certain projects in abeyance for the time being in order to reduce Government expenditure under present circumstances in which anti-inflationary measures are being applied, but I want to plead here to-day for the establishment of the desired virological research institute to be placed high on the list of priorities of projects to be tackled. I have been informed that such a research institute will cost plus-minus R2 million. This is a negligible amount when seen in the light of the millions of rand which such a research institute will save us. The time factor is also a very important one. We realize that we are being threatened but we never know when conditions will become so favourable that the disease will be able to spread at a tremendously rapid rate as is at present happening in England. The establishment of such an institute is going to take time and the necessary research is going to take a few years, and where we are dependent on Pirbright in England at this stage for the typing of virus diseases and for the preparation of vaccine, we cannot afford to lose any more time. At present a great deal of research is being conducted in South Africa into every other sphere, and the industries which benefit from those research projects are prepared to make their contributions to the cost of establishing research institutes. I think it would be in the interests of our stock industry if interest could be aroused on that side and if the different marketing boards, such as the Meat Board and the Wool Board, could each make a contribution from their funds, because the combating of these diseases also forms part of the stabilizing of our meat and wool industries, etc., and consequently I think we may rightly draw money from those stabilization funds for the establishment of such a research institute.

Mr. Speaker, with that I want to conclude and I want to express the hope that everyone will support this idea.

We owe a debt of appreciation to the hon. member for having introduced this motion and for the service he has rendered to the farming community by stressing the gravity of these virus diseases and what they cost the country. In addition to that he drew attention to the fact that the time for research was now and not 1972—the projected date given by the Minister of Agriculture. As it is, we have lost many years of research because we have not gone about it correctly in that we have greatly neglected basic research. But I shall return to this aspect later on.

In order to widen the scope of the discussion I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (a) the establishment of a virological research institute for animals; and
2. (b) the immediate expansion of the facilities for training virologists, technical assistants and other veterinary research personnel”.

The hon. member has given a fair picture of the state of foot-and-mouth disease in the country. It is a disease which is, more or less, limited to cattle and wild animals with cloven hooves. It differs a little from the other virus diseases in that it is probably—(a fact which has not yet been proved)—not carried by intermediate hosts. As far as is known at the moment, the tick and the mosquito do not carry this disease. Because the hooves and the mouths of animals are affected it is easy to understand that this disease can easily be spread because of contact of the hooves and mouths of the animals with the grazing. The outlook of the British authorities on this disease is determined to a large extent by this factor and also here because we try to cordon off the disease, as the British have always tried to cordon it off. Britain’s attitude has always been that she is an island and if she could eradicate this disease by stopping its entry she will be safe. It is possible that the immunization affects the quality of the meat and as they have an enormous export market in Europe and America they do not want to risk the loss of that market.

The curious thing about foot-and-mouth disease is that it comprises at least six different viruses, or variants of viruses. It also affects human beings though only mildly. As far as we know at present the virus infecting humans is not the same as the virus infecting cattle. Immunity conferred by injection is, though reliable, limited—only about four months’ immunity. The Botswana government thought four months’ immunity was satisfactory on account of the fact that the disease there is seasonal—it occurs mostly in the winter. In October, 1967, it inoculated 213,160 head of cattle, 120,579 goats and 13,806 sheep. That took them a month and covered an area of 52,400 square miles. There had been seven outbreaks of this disease in Botswana in 10 years which have resulted in a loss of about five-sixths of the revenue derived from exports. The vaccine used in the campaign was developed in a prefabricated laboratory at Makalakiri, a point about 40 miles from the Okavango swamps. Three men, headed by Dr. Townsend, isolated an unstable virus called SAT3. The vaccine gave immunity for about four months, which was considered satisfactory because the disease (as I have said) is usually confined to the winter period. The director of veterinary services ordered mass inoculations in the north every winter, four teams headed by stock inspectors were employed. The vaccine was sent to the four teams daily in ice chests to keep cool. The campaign lasted 24 working days.

The hon. member for Karas mentioned Pirbright and others. I agree with him that we must build a Pirbright here. A feature of Pirbright is that whereas most other laboratories took a long time to identify the particular strain involved Pirbright could give an answer within a few hours. But the world centre for foot-and-mouth disease investigations and treatment is in Lyons in France. It is there that England recently with her grave outbreak went for help. The centre at Lyons is now maintained by the French government. It was started originally by a pupil of Pasteur but after the 1937/’38 outbreak in France, caused by the importation of Algerian sheep, the French government decided to subsidize the institute substantially. It has since become the main supplier of vaccine in Europe. In France since 1962 all cloven hooved animals must be inoculated against foot-and-mouth disease but the vaccine had actually been in use for about 12 years previously. The cost in France to-day is about 4.50 francs. The exchange rate is about 14 francs to the £, which is 7 francs to the Rroughly, so it will be seen that the cost relative to the cost of the disease is minimal.

The cost of the disease is serious enough in a country like England where they have had to burn the animals. It could just as easily be done here, because these cattle lose much weight, indeed, they can lose up to 100 lbs. in a week. The unfortunate part is that they never regain their weight; they never get it back from an economic point of view. In a way what England did was quite right, but unfortunately she was not able to control the spread of disease.

In France they use a trivalent vaccine because they have three particular strains. So serious do they regard foot-and-mouth disease in France that, although they are regarded by the continent and by North Africa as being the centre for research and supply, they will not permit the introduction of a single specimen virus of a different strain to theirs. This aspect was revealed clearly when there was an outbreak of virus and a new strain, namely S.A.T.I. appeared in Syria and Turkey in 1961. The French Government would not permit the importation of the virus into France. but it dispatched a team from Mérieux Institute, which is the foot-and-mouth institute in Lyons, to the area. In six months sufficient vaccine was prepared on the spot, and a cordon much better than a fence, and much better than policemen, was established along the frontiers of Turkey, Bulgaria and Greece. The virus has not reached Europe. The counter-measures were completely successful. Recently, that is within the past three or four months, the Russians found a new virus in Poland, called AMO. They went to Lyons to study the matter and discuss it, just as England did when she had difficulties.

I have gone into detail about the foot-and-mouth disease institute in Lyons because the institute sets the pattern for virological research in this country. It is devoted entirely to the study of virus diseases and it has one great distinguishing feature, namely it has united research into humans and animals for the virus diseases. Knowledge of virus diseases is not by any means, like polio and other diseases which look like being overcome, extensive, and there is a terrible shortage of virological doctors or virologists. The French have rightly combined the two types of research, namely that concerning humans and that concerning animals.

While we have dealt with foot-and-mouth disease and fever for the moment, we have others to deal with and I should like to mention some of them. Of the virus diseases in this country the commonest are rabies and foot-and-mouth disease. Both these diseases are of great concern to the Department of Agriculture. There are also others, and I want to mention them because I feel that at any time one of these viruses could go wild and spread disease throughout the country, both to man and to animal. As the hon. member mentioned, we have the great problem of wild animals which are reservoirs for these diseases very often without themselves suffering seriously. All that is needed is a mosquito or a tick to transfer the disease. Recent studies by Dr. Macintosh have shown that many of the small rodents of this country are highly susceptible to the virus diseases. Rodents live in close proximity to human beings and their animals. Rodents eat man’s food and also the animals’ food. The mosquito is common in many parts of the country. When a virus is first isolated its gravity is very often not appreciated, as I shall show later in some cases here in the Western Province. West Nile virus was first isolated from the blood of a Native woman suffering a febrile illness in north-western Uganda in 1914. For a few years the disease was lost sight of, but a few years later it reappeared in the Belgian Congo and the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. It was lost again from the point of view of observation—it was not really lost—until about 14 years later when it turned up thousands of miles away in the Middle East. Subsequently it has been shown that it is prevalent in almost the whole African continent, and it goes as far afield as India. I want to point out to the House how serious can be the spread of these viruses.

Rift Valley Fever, another viral fever which is more common in South Africa—Enzootic Hepatitis—also affects human beings. In 1951, quite unexpectedly, an outbreak occurred near Koffiefontein, followed by a widespread epidemic of sheep and cattle of the Western Free State, Southern and Western Transvaal, and also in the North-Western Cape Province. It caused heavy losses of sheep and cattle. All veterinary surgeons who carried out autopsies became infected and over 50 cases of a similar illness occurred amongst farmers and their Native labourers. The death rate amongst sheep was extremely high. A vaccine was discovered by a worker Smithburn at Onderstepoort. He was a man who came to this country from the Rockefeller Institute to study these viruses. In 1965 the Arbovirus Research Unit of the South African Institute of Medical Research investigated the presence of antibodies in animals and humans.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, in case I have given the impression that diseases of this nature are limited to the more tropical areas, I want to point out that a research team also investigated the Western Cape in this regard.

It tested for practically all the known viruses that are in South Africa. They tested from Worcester, Swellendam, Hermanus to Malmesbury, Piquetberg, Clanwilliam, Van Rhynsdorp and then they went north to Springbok, Pofadder and Upington. In every case, except for Hermanus, they were able to find at least one positive reactor to one of these viruses, the commonest being the West Nile and the Middelburg viruses. This shows that there is a reservoir even as far south as the Western Province. Time does not permit me to go into further details, but I should like to say that there must be a reason for the spread of virus diseases to the south where, as far as can be ascertained, they were unknown in the past. It is above all, this new spread of viruses that forces us to insist more and more on the establishment of a virological institute of sufficient size and capacity. The coastal lowlands of South Africa are the extension of the tropical corridor which extends down both sides of our coast. In the east it is particularly suitable for the breeding of vectors. This area has a temperature which is relatively high. It has a high rainfall and the occurrence of lakes, swamps, rivers, vegetation and various fauna make it a good breeding ground for the ticks and the mosquitoes. In contrast the central high plateau of South Africa has an erratic rainfall. It has bitterly cold winters and relatively sparse vegetation. While these vectors can exist, they need reinforcing from time to time. There is reason to believe that this is as a result of our alteration of the ecology of these districts. During and since the war the advanced prices paid for agricultural produce acted as a stimulus to farmers to increase production. As the stimulus affected the growing of livestock it was probably responsible for increased movements of stock from one district to another. There was also an extension of road building as a result of which fast highways now provide access to all parts of the country. This has made possible the rapid transport of animals from one region to another. Artificial lakes have been created in the Orange Free State, the North-Western Cape and elsewhere as a part of water and soil conservation. Hordes of migratory birds are now coming into regions where they were unknown before. It is possible that other vertebrate and invertebrate hosts which are difficult to check compared with birds, may also have increased their range. They have brought with them diseases previously unknown in these areas. It seems likely that the epidemic and the accompanying infections in man will continue unless measures for their control are developed. At this point I say that if and when such a virological institute is established, it should not be developed in the Transvaal Highveld where the disease is relatively unimportant, but in the coastal regions and particularly the eastern coastal regions where conditions are naturally favourable to these diseases where they are known to exist at present and are becoming increasingly severe and common.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commence by referring to the amendment moved by the hon. member fur Durban (Central). I think it is necessary to draw the attention of this House to the fact that there has been a tremendous expansion of facilities at Onderstepoort in recent years. In point of fact, it will not be possible to combat the problem more effectively by creating more facilities elsewhere or by bringing about a division of facilities which will include other centres as well. I think the strength and the excellent operation of Onderstepoort may be attributed chiefly to the fact that it has been operating on a concentrated basis which allows of a wide study being made into different stock diseases and in which study knowledge of one disease may supplement knowledge of another. In addition I want to point out that we generally have problems in this country as regards trained and highly specialized and qualified human material. We have a shortage of these people. One of the factors which is involved in this matter is that we have a present population of 19 million people in this country of which only 3½ million are Whites. The highly trained technicians to render this type of service are chiefly drawn from the latter group. It is a major problem to meet from this small white population the need we have for these people. In addition we have to render services in this connection not only for ourselves, but also for the non-white population as well as for the non-white populations of the neighbouring countries in Africa which have not yet reached anything resembling a similar development. These countries cannot make a real contribution in this regard. There is another problem which goes hand in hand with this and that is that there is tremendous competition for the services of people of this kind as a result of the tremendous development in the economic field, and I want to refer to the pirating that is taking place. I think it is necessary to draw attention to this. Many of the people who have been trained in our faculties of agriculture and at Onderstepoort in particular, have been snatched up as a result of the relative economic prosperity of the industrial sector and the commercial sector, and many of these people have received good offers and have left the Public Service as a result. This is a great pity. We hope that as a result of this motion, if the possibility exists that it will be carried into effect, we shall at least get facilities which will provide greater encouragement to the real scientists.

I want to indicate that virology as a study is a particularly interesting and complicated field. We are getting more and more specialization. It may perhaps be necessary to indicate that specialization means the study of less and less about which more and more knowledge has to be gained until we may reach the stage where people know everything about nothing, but I do not think we have reached the stage where there is over-specialization. As regards viruses, we have a wide complex, not only as regards our animal material but also our plant material and man. If we go back in history, we find that the first case of vaccination against a virus occurred when Edward Jenner, the English doctor, introduced into the human body the secretion from cow-pox in 1796 and thereby succeeded in making those people immune to ordinary pox. Since that time there has been tremendous development. It is interesting to note that the word “vaccination” dates back to those times. The Latin name for a cow is “vacca” and because the secretion of cowpox was used for immunization against ordinary pox the word “vaccination” was born. One hundred and two years later another scientist, Beijerinck succeeded, for the first time, to isolate a virus and to establish more or less what it was. Actually he filtered the tobacco mosaic virus through filters and used the secretion and found that it still caused infection in healthy tobacco plants. It was then presumed that this virus or contagium—virus actually means contagium or poison—was a secretion of bacteria. I am referring to this in order to indicate that there were individuals who by dedicating themselves and by making sacrifices made breakthroughs which were extremely important in the development of knowledge about viruses and counter-measures for combating infection. In the same year in which Beijerinck was able to establish that a virus was something different to a bacterium, it was also established that a virus actually was the cause of foot-and-mouth disease. It then took a long time, approximately up to 1930, before further progress could be made at which time the electron microscope enabled the scientists to distinguish viruses, a virus being such a tiny organism. Approximately the same time, in 1928, Max Theiler developed a vaccine against yellow fever and at that time too success was achieved in breeding a virus artificially in eggs. All this work was done by our scientists all over the world in various fields so as to find out more and more about the causes of virus diseases and the operation and composition of a virus. It was only round about 1935 that it could be established analytically that a virus actually consisted of pure protein but that it was a very interesting form of life, namely small cells which could live and reproduce in other cells. Since that time we have had considerable development. There was the development in 1954 of the well-known Salk vaccine against polio, which is caused by a virus. During all these developments and the study of viruses we in South Africa were constantly experiencing problems and were unable to make a real contribution in a more specialized direction. There were, inter alia, the outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease which we have been experiencing throughout the years and even up to recent times; the latest outbreak in my constituency in the Eastern Lowveld occurred in December, 1967, and we have been hearing that the virus thrived in cold, wet regions. The foot-and-mouth disease virus is one of the difficult viruses, of which, I think, seven types have already been distinguished. In passing I just want to refer to the fact that there are approximately 100 types of the virus which causes colds in humans, and this makes it very difficult to find vaccines against these viruses of which there is such a variety.

As regards the practical problems of foot-and-mouth disease, I want to refer once again to the Eastern Lowveld. There we have the Kruger National Park with its large numbers of game, and scientists are of the opinion that the foot-and-mouth disease virus is endemic there. The Government has been spending large amounts on erecting fences and on exercising supervision and quarantine and control measures after every outbreak, but the problem is not only that game moves from place to place but a major additional problem is our Bantu population. I have indicated that they cannot make a contribution in the scientific field as a result of their level of development, but they provide this additional problem in that they do not realize their responsibilities when there are outbreaks of these diseases. During the latest outbreak in the Komatipoort vicinity during December, it was ascertained that the outbreak occurred in virtually the identical place in which the previous outbreak occurred. The only conclusion at which one could arrive—the Crocodile River was in flood and no animals could come from the National Park—was that the outbreak was caused by Bantu who had stolen game in the National Park and had brought the meat into that area. This is our big problem and this makes the entire question of foot-and-mouth disease in this country more complicated. I want to indicate that the question of foot-and-mouth disease in areas such as the Eastern Transvaal and the Northern Transvaal and the areas along the Protectorates, represents a tremendous risk for the farmers. In my opinion the fact that we have nevertheless succeeded in exercising such a high degree of control over this disease, speaks volumes to the credit of our scientists of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and Onderstepoort in particular. There are problems, however, which makes this disease very hazardous, so much so that we must go further and take more measures. A year or two ago, for example, an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease was suspected in the vicinity of Barberton, and those people were immediately placed under quarantine. Each time this happens it causes a tremendous disruption and it entails financial losses. Samples now have to be sent to Pirbright in England in order to determine whether a virus is a foot-and-mouth disease virus, and, if so, what type of virus. In that case the people were under quarantine for more than a month before it was ascertained that the lesions in the mouths of the animals were not caused by the foot-and-mouth disease virus. I am mentioning this specially to indicate that it is necessary for us to do more in this direction locally.

Another factor which enters the picture is the question of the value of our exports of agricultural products. When we look at the statistics we see that over the past ten years the value of our agricultural export products has virtually never been below R300 million per annum, and in quite a few cases it has exceeded R400 million per annum. Animal products are not the only ones which are being endangered by this disease. We have found that the export of maize via Lourenço Marques was hampered during the past year, because the trains had to pass through a foot-and-mouth disease area. Our veterinary surgeons have to issue certificates and in the case of many other agricultural products to be exported, our authorities have to issue the necessary documents to certify that the packing material, etc., has not been in contact with foot-and-mouth disease areas or does not come from such areas. These are all matters which make it a very hazardous business to maintain these exports. It may happen that we may experience an outbreak at some stage as a result of the Bantu factor which I have mentioned but also as a result of our fast transport and that that outbreak may spread to the interior and that we may experience a total disruption of our agricultural exports. This factor is one which I want to emphasize strongly.

I want to go back and refer briefly to Onder-stepoort and the question of staff. I have indicated, and I am convinced that that is correct, that we must not think of dividing our staff amongst various training centres at this stage. We simply do not have a sufficient number of people to do so. We must employ the people at our disposal as judiciously as possible. My information is that we have 11 veterinary surgeons working in the virus division at Onderstepoort. In addition there is a chief as well as additional technical staff; all these posts are filled and these people are rendering a special service. If we look at other subdivisions of virology, we find that we also have the same number of virologists doing plant research. Here I want to mention that the citrus industry, for example, suffered heavily under the threat of a complex of viruses, which included, for instance, the greening virus which did tremendous damage in the Eastern Lowveld of the Transvaal and subsequently in the central areas of the Transvaal. One man was made available at the research station and Nelspruit to work on this problem. I think there are two of them at the moment, but the University of Pretoria established a few years ago that this disease of greening was being spread and probably being caused by a virus. The Department has succeeded in obtaining the necessary equipment and in appointing a man at Nelspruit, and last year he established that this virus was particularly sensitive to heat. with the result that there is a possibility of exercising control over it. I am merely indicating that in many cases we simply have to make the necessary equipment available whereupon we shall in fact find the necessary people. We need not have large numbers of people. It will be sufficient to make the equipment available and to try to put one or two or three of these very highly specialized people to work. We have the example of Onderstepoort in the early days of Sir Arnold Theiler up to the present time, that if these people are given the slightest chance they will regard that as a challenge and set about their task zealously.

Consequently my plea is, while I am very conscious of the fact that we do not have any money to waste and that the establishment of an institution like this requires very expensive equipment and very expensive buildings, that the State must accept this duty; but I want to support the hon. member for Karas in what he said, namely that bodies such as the Meat Board and other bodies which are concerned in this matter, should also try to make a contribution to the establishment of this important undertaking. Once we have reached the stage where we have the equipment and the small number of highly specialized people required, the work can proceed. The hon. member for Durban (Central) indicated that there was a special institute at Lyons in France. I think if we, for the time being, can make use of people who have also received further training in this specialized direction there, it will reduce the hazard of foot-and-mouth disease and the consequent threat to our agricultural industry as a whole and will go a long way in enabling our own people to face and solve this problem.

I want to content myself with these few ideas. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that I think that our researchers and Onderstepoort in particular, deserve to have an opportunity like this to throw some light on this very critical and highly problematic stock disease which represents a constant threat. I may just mention too that the annual report for the year ended 30th June, 1966. indicates how much work it requires simply to maintain fences. For instance, there were 7,000 breaks in one year; 37,000 single wires and 50,000 posts were repaired. It requires a tremendous amount of labour simply to add all these things up and to keep a record of them. With these few ideas, Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in supporting this motion.

Sir, this motion might be construed as being very much akin to the one in respect of which last Friday we had that very brilliant address by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillbrow. In this motion we are dealing with another question of scientific research and the facilities for it. I am supporting the amendment merely because it makes the issue a little wider. I do not think that actually so far as the principle is concerned there is any quarrel either with the original motion or with what the mover of the motion had to say. I think we agree with him; he put his case very well and I am glad that the Rules of the House and the time allotted for debate have permitted him to bring this motion before us. I only hope that the hon. the Minister has not made up his mind in advance. That unfortunately is so often the case with motions when they come from private members. I see a faraway look in his eye … [Interjections.] All that worries me is whether the Minister wrote out the speech for the hon. member who moved the motion so that he will be in a position, with the speech that he has on his desk, already written out, to reply to him. Be that as it may, it is for us to put the case as best we can for the extension of scientific research facilities through the establishment of a virological research station. I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) that if possible it should not be associated with Onderstepoort, in direct contact with them, but that it should be a separate institution. Let the two institutions, as is so often the case, sharpen each other by having the closest contact through their scientific staff and so forth, but let them sharpen each other’s wits. The one plays on the other and discoveries made in one institution are of benefit to the other and vice versa.

It is good competition.

Yes, it is in the scientific field as my hon. friend says. Sir, with the research station, of course, goes the question of staff, which the hon. member for Nelspruit has just referred to. We must have the staff. That is one of our difficulties in South Africa. Often we lose our best men, men who could be of great value to us in establishing an institution of this kind. The continuous training of the staff so that as time goes on we are continually bringing in new young men with new ideas for further training to take part in the work of the institute, is something which to my mind is absolutely essential. Sir, much mention has been made of foot-and-mouth disease. It has been stated that there are seven strains which have been isolated here in South Africa, and reference has been made to the difficulty that we are in because we have to rely on Pirbright in Britain when we want to have the various strains identified. Sir, I want to come back to that in a moment because there is another disease which was mentioned by my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central), namely rabies. Recently I had the opportunity and the privilege of listening to an address by a professor of veterinary science, and I was amazed to hear the number of virus diseases which are transmissible to human beings, some of them with very severe consequences and some not so dangerous. Where we may have seven strains to-day, we have to bear in mind, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said, that one or other of those may run wild. There is more in it than the danger that one strain may run wild. New strains are appearing and when you get an outbreak such as the Russians had in Poland recently which they could not handle—they had to go to France to find out how to deal with it—they were merely meeting one of the almost normal developments in connection with virus diseases throughout the world. Sir, nobody knows why a particular virus runs wild. Nobody knows why a new strain appears. Nobody knows why one which was relatively harmless suddenly takes on a new character and becomes a malady of the greatest importance, capable of creating a death roll out of all proportion to its danger when it first started. I say that nobody knows what makes these new strains appear. I would like to mention a scientific magazine that I received just recently from the United States. I see that in that country they are expending at the present time no less than R8 million on an institute for virological research that they are establishing way out in the desert for no other purpose than to try to identify the strains of viruses which are coming back as the result of man’s adventures in the stratosphere. They are spending R8 million so that when they come back to earth every particle of every one of the capsules which are sent into outer space can be tested for viruses, to see whether they are bringing back to earth viruses which can spread here, completely unknown to mankind and which can have the most fatal consequences for us. America believes that it is worth R8 million to establish an institute like that. You see, Sir, not all viruses are harmful; they are beneficial, and here we have one of those curious things. So often there is an interlinking between what you might call the animal world and mankind, which was referred to earlier on, because we are part of the animal world if we would only recognize it—some more so than others, if I may be permitted to say so. But, Sir, there is a link also with the inanimate world— plant life and so forth. You get lower forms of life, reptiles and so forth. Only the other day I read an article which pointed out that the host for a virus disease that has been known a long time, has just recently been identified. It was various types of snakes, and the virus is carried in their mouths. That is the host, and if you just get the vector, that disease is spread to mankind, and in fact that is what is happening. Sir, not only are there new strains of viruses appearing from time to time but there are new vectors being discovered as well as new hosts. Our knowledge in regard to this matter is extremely limited, particularly here on the continent of Africa where you have such vast areas and where research into virus diseases is not being carried out on anything like the appropriate scale. The danger is manifest. But I want to go further. America is putting up this big virological research station to deal with the testing of all these materials which are coming back from outer space, but with that goes the possibility—almost the certainty—that the influence of radio-active materials on certain forms of life here amongst us will be an influence the result of which cannot be foreseen. You see, Sir, we are using certain rays at the present time to disturb the genetic succession of certain plants; we are growing new strains of wheat and so forth, as the result of a deliberate attempt to change the genes and produce a new type of wheat with new characteristics. Gone are the old days of the long, tedious business of slow evolutionary process. Here now is a quick change, not always a beneficial one, admittedly. The proportion of beneficial changes is very small indeed.

But, Sir, what can be done deliberately in regard to wheat is also being done in regard to human beings inadvertently. Sir, when we read in the newspapers that there is this amount of nuclear fall-out in the air or in the atmosphere or in this or that part of the world and the scientists tell us that it is still below danger point, what value can we attach to those statements? They do not know. What they mean is that it will not harm you at the present time so far as they are able to tell. What the longterm result is going to be on humanity, let alone other forms of life, we cannot tell.

When we look back into the past ages and we see the distribution of animals, birds, plants, reptiles and so forth, and we think of the tens of thousands of forms which life has assumed, we are sometimes told by some scientist that this was due to such and such a radiation at that time; that that is what started the new forms. Sir, mankind is tempting Providence at the present time by the use of nuclear power, by producing and bringing into the world, into our atmosphere, to work on our bodies, certain influences the end of which we cannot foresee. Some viruses do not work by a direct operation on the tissues or anything of that sort. They themselves produce a chemical; they produce a new hormone, they produce a new protein, they produce something which is what actually changes the body or affects you, not just the virus itself but the product of the virus. With this play on all life on the earth because of the tendency in various parts of our atmosphere to get this heavy concentration of radio-active fall-out, we do not know where we are going to. But, Sir, we know what we should do. We know that we should take the first opportunity to get our own scientists on to the job of dealing with these matters here in our own country. At the first sign that something is going wrong we should have the staff and the facilities and the opportunity to deal with it at once, and not rely on somebody in Great Britain, in France or somewhere else. They may have their own problems to deal with. We should be able to deal with these matters here, and if there are beneficial sides to it we should be prepared to take advantage of the beneficial sides. Sir, long ago it was known that in regard to plantations, certain types of timber trees, for example, if you inoculate those trees with a certain substance you produce a virus beneficial to the tree. That has been known for a long time. Viruses are used to-day for beneficial purposes as well as for harmful purposes. The link between the vegetable and the animal world is a very close link, and there is room here for the widest kind of research in an institution such as is contemplated in the motion before us and the amendment. Sir, we have produced good scientists and we are producing good scientists; I do not doubt the calibre of the scientists that we can produce. Here is a field in which the best brains and the best scientists that we can possibly produce can be put to the fullest possible use for the benefit of the people of South Africa. But, Sir, we must not wait. With every year that passes, with every explosion of nuclear power, there is a greater and a greater danger so far as the world is concerned and so far as we in South Africa are concerned. We ought not to be caught on the wrong foot if one of these things suddenly went wild, as the hon. member put it; if a new strain develops and before we can do anything about it, we have to rely on another’s goodwill to come and tell us what is wrong and how we should set about to deal with the new threat. It is a chance we cannot take, and I hope the Minister realizes it. High priority should be accorded to the project asked for in the motion and the amendment thereto. I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister will say that it is in the interests of South Africa that the money required therefor must be found and the work done. It is an opportunity for our young men, and in the interests of South Africa and I trust he will put his driving force behind it to see that that is achieved.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Karas, has, with the introduction of his motion, performed a service by once again bringing up this subject for discussion in the House. Once again attention is being focussed on the serious nature of the threat of foot-and-mouth disease to our country, our stock, as well as our export trade.

The threat of foot-and-mouth disease is a problem which we have of course had for many years in South Africa. The hon. member for Karas mentioned that since the rinderpest, or immediately afterwards, there was for a long period of time no outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. That proved once again the importance of the role played by wild life in the carrying of foot-and-mouth disease. We in South Africa were in the fortunate position that although our country borders on other countries which also have this problem and although we have large concentrations of wild life on our borders, such as the Kruger National Park and other reserves, we had consistently been able to localize or rather to keep the outbreaks localized on our borders. Since the 30’s there have only been three outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in the interior, away from our borders. In 1933 there was an outbreak in Germiston, in 1938 there was one in Natal, and in 1957 we had trouble on the Witwatersrand.

The hon. member also referred to the costs which had been incurred in combating this disease. He pointed out that R10 million had already been spent for this purpose, apart from the effects which the disease had had on the marketing figures of our producers and other interested parties, and the losses of stock which had been suffered. If it had not been for our veterinary services, with their control schemes, which brought the foot-and-mouth danger under control to such a large extent, we would have had a far wider spread of the disease in South Africa than was in fact the case. That is why I think it is fitting to-day that we pay tribute to these people who have to apply the quarantine measures. I am not only thinking of the veterinary surgeons of the Department here, but also of our stock inspectors who have over the years done exceptionally important work and who are in fact still doing so to-day in keeping this disease under control. I am also thinking of the important work which they are at present doing, not only in respect of foot-and-mouth disease, but also here in the Western Cape where we have recently had an outbreak of Newcastle disease amongst the poultry. Those people have had to cancel their holidays and they were on duty at all times in order to apply the quarantine measures. It redounds to their credit that they were prepared to make so many sacrifices. I really think it is fitting that we should on this occasion pay tribute to those officials for the capable way in which they have consistently in the past helped to apply these control measures.

The motion now before the House reads that a virological research institute should be established for foot-and-mouth disease. If one considers the amounts which have been spent in combating this disease, then one would think the establishment of an institute where the research work may be undertaken and the vaccines prepared would save a great deal of the costs. I just want to point out that, taking into consideration the geography of our country and the large concentration of wild life which is being conserved within our borders, the establishment of such an institute would not mean that we will not always have to take steps to counteract the spread of this disease both from outside and within our borders. We shall always have to do so. Hon. members also referred to the large amounts of money which are being spent on game-proof fencing. In the case of the Republic R870,000 has been spent, and in the case of South West Africa, the amount is R2 million. This year the maintenance costs for the Republic’s fences alone amounts to R52,000. The fact remains, even though we were to have such an institute, we would always have to make provision for fencing on our borders and on the borders of our game reserves in order to ensure the necessary control. These vaccines cannot be used on wild life, but only on tame animals. This means therefore that we will always have to spend large sums of money in order to have game-proof fencing along our more extensive boundaries, the boundaries along Botswana, Swaziland and the other States, and also around our game reserves. We shall still have to incur those costs. I am mentioning this fact simply because it is easy for one to gain the impression that with the establishment of a research institute and the preparation of a vaccine in order to combat the disease, the costs will be considerably decreased. I wonder whether we, except for the temporary control, will in fact be able to do so.

As hon. members know, England already has such an institute. Most of the vaccines which are being used against the viruses are already being manufactured there. Britain has this advantage that it is surrounded by sea. She does not have to cope with game reserves and other states on her borders, as we do. Nevertheless she recently suffered a serious outbreak, and that simply goes to prove what a dangerous threat one has to deal with here.

The outbreak to which the hon. member for Nelspruit referred, was soon confined within reasonable limits, and the reason for that was the fact that we had the fencing around those game reserves. If it had not been for that, the disease would have spread much further, and the costs would have been much higher. It is calculated that the saving on counter-measures in those areas already justifies the erection costs of that fencing.

The need which is being felt for the establishment of a foot-and-mouth laboratory is nothing new. The need has been felt for many years. All agree that such an institute has become indispensable for South Africa. In this regard I want to refer particularly to the role played by wild life in the incidence of the disease. In South Africa we have to cope with a unique situation. The situation here is completely different to that in other parts of the world where this disease also occurs because we have so much wild life on and within our borders. It has now been alleged here that no research in this respect is taking place in South Africa. But the fact of the matter is that Onderstepoort already has a virus section. Owing to the danger of the spread of foot-and-mouth viruses, a great deal of research work had to be done in order to equip the institute in such a way that the viruses could not disperse from a point round it. That would have made the danger greater than it is at present.

For many years of course we were obliged to make use of the English institute at Pirbright, as hon. members were quite right in stating here. If we had an institute for manufacturing our own vaccines we would be able to make great savings owing to the fact that the vaccine has in the past not always been available when we wanted it most, and also because importing the vaccine entails considerable costs for us. For these important reasons and in view of the fact that everyone is under the impression that we need such a virological research institute, the Cabinet decided in principle in 1961 to establish such an institution. But because tremendously strict and watertight security measures have to be taken, and because this is a prerequisite for the establishment of such a laboratory Dr. Weiss of Onderstepoort was sent overseas as long ago as 1962 to make a general study of the establishment of such an institute, with which would also be associated the control measures and supervision which would have to be applied. If these viruses should escape from such a laboratory you can understand what the possibilities would be in regard to its distribution around the centre where that institute was situated. In 1964 Dr. Howell, also of Onderstepoort was sent to Pirbright for further specialized training in regard to foot-and-mouth research. Unfortunately Dr. Howell has, in the meantime, left the Department and taken up other employment.

Planning a research building is a particularly difficult task and requires a great deal of study. I just want to say that the planning of this research building has already progressed so far that we think that the planning will be completed within three months. Adequate grounds for the establishment of such an institute, have also been found at Onderstepoort. Hon. members referred to that and stated that such an institute ought not to be established at Onderstepoort, since research into other kinds of viruses has also to be undertaken by such an institute. But, Mr. Speaker, many of the other viruses are not as dangerous to our economy when an outbreak occurs as foot-and-mouth disease, because this disease can spread so easily. If it spreads, it not only presents the danger of the disease spreading even further, it also presents the danger of a tremendous economic setback for the country.

It is the most dangerous disease for the moment.

That is why one must take care that such an institute is so situated that it is under full control, and that the spread of those viruses is also under full control.

I just want to inform hon. members that the Government is fully aware of this problem and of the dangers it presents, because it can prejudice our economy, and particularly our export trade, very seriously. That is why the Government is also convinced that priority should be given to the establishment of such a virological research institute and priority has in fact been given to it. As soon as it is practicable, and as soon as funds are available— we hope that this will soon be the case—the establishment of such an institute will be proceeded with.

I just want to point out to hon. members that the calculation of the costs for the establishment of such an institute are between R1 million and R2 million. It is estimated that it will take between two and three years to complete such an institute.

Hon. members referred to the fact that the provision of staff will create problems. The hon. member for Nelspruit also pointed out that we have on many occasions lost a few of our trained people because they went to other countries, and also to other undertakings in South Africa. But we are sometimes fortunate in being able to attract people from other countries. At Stellenbosch, for example, there is a foreigner, Dr. Degenwortel, who was recently appointed and is to-day regarded as one of the world’s greatest virologists. We are for tunate therefore in being able to attract people from other places as well. The problem is of course that of human material, of people who can proceed with this research. But we believe, as is generally the case, that when the facilities exist, our people will be more prepared to offer their services. I need not enumerate the advantages of such an institute, particularly since we form part of Africa and are in fact the leading State on the Continent. The role which Onderstepoort is playing in its research in various other fields in the progress of South Africa, in the counteracting of diseases within our boundaries and with the services which it is rendering to other parts of African, can, particularly in regard to the combating of foot-and-mouth disease when such an institute has been established, also be of importance in regard to the question of relations with the rest of Africa. In the light of our policy to grant assistance to the underdeveloped parts of Africa, such an institute could be of great value, particularly as regards the combating of foot-and-mouth disease.

Virological research as such is already being undertaken at various places. It is being undertaken at Onderstepoort on various levels. It is being done in respect of fruit, as has already been said, as well as in respect of mankind. But, because foot-and-mouth disease is so different from the other virus disease phenomena, and because it is so dangerous, not only from a health point of view, but also from an economic point of view, research must concentrate on, and be done in such a way that there will not, eventually, be a spread instead of a combating of the disease. In order to keep this spread within limits it is essential that the planning be done as well as possible, that that institute shall be controlled in such a way that any spread of the virus from there will be impossible. Of course carrying out that research and training the people for that purpose has taken time. It takes time to plan the institute in such a way that it can operate under such strict control measures, but I think I can say that the time has come when we can expect that the establishment of such an institute will be proceeded with within the foreseeable future.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very amiable discussion this afternoon, and the hon. the Minister has at least given us a ray of hope that in the foreseeable future— I think that was the phrase he used—the Government may possibly proceed with the erection of a virological research institute. The hon. the Minister, though, has skirted round one of the very important aspects of this, an aspect raised by the hon. member for South Coast, i.e. the question of the staffing of such an institute. I do hope that the hon. the Minister—he has not been long in this particular portfolio—is going to realize how very serious the present position is. I hope the Department will give priority to this question of the establishment of a virological institute and that he is going to give priority to the whole question of the staffing of such an institute and, indeed, of the existing research institute at Onderstepoort, as well as the rest of the veterinary division which comes under him. The question of stock diseases is one of the gravest problems which the farmers in this country must face. I am glad that the hon. member for Christiana is here this afternoon, because on a number of occasions last year I made an estimate of an amount of over R20 million which I said stock diseases had cost this country as a result of the death of cattle, sheep and goats every year. But the hon. member seemed to doubt my figures. If, however, he looks at the Statistical Yearbook for 1966, which is the latest edition we have, and he looks at the stock losses for 1962-’63, namely deaths due to disease, he will find that in that year we lost some 295,000 head of cattle and 1,172,000 sheep and goats. If he then does some simple arithmetic and values the cattle at the low figure of R40, he will find that total losses amounted to approximately R11,800,000. If he values the sheep and goats at a mere R7 per head, he will find that total losses in this regard came to over R8 million. These figures were not merely high for that particular year. This is a consistent loss. I repeat that the figure of R20 million per year for losses of cattle, sheep and goats is most conservative. It excludes of course losses of pigs, poultry, horses and other farm animals. It also excludes losses in regard to animals which have become sick and have subsequently recovered. Unfortunately we do not have any figures available for financial losses due to animals contracting virus diseases as opposed to other diseases. They must, however, be exceedingly high. When the hon. member for Karas introduced this motion this afternoon he gave us some indication of the scope of those losses. They must be high, because authorities such as Mönnig and Veldman in their handbook on stock diseases list no less than 30 virus diseases amongst stock in this country. If we add to that the diseases due to rickettsias which are first cousins of the virus—in fact Mönnig and Veldman referred to rickettsia sometimes as being a virus—then there are an extra four diseases due to rickettsias, including that very important disease of heartwater.

The Minister has praised the officials of the Division of Veterinary Field Services for their work in containing foot-and-mouth disease and other virus diseases. I want to associate myself with his remarks, because I think that they have done a wonderful job of work. It has, of course, at times been necessary to move a very large number of staff from the districts where they are normally situated to undertake this control work, whether it happens to be in South West Africa or on the borders of the Kruger National Park or even, as is at present the case, in the Western Cape as a result of the outbreak of Newcastle disease. I do not know how many of these officials are still in the Western Cape but at one time, and I quote from the January/February issue of a small newspaper called Merino which is issued by one of the meat companies, there were about 100 veterinary inspectors in this area. Assuming that the majority of them are stock inspectors, then what has happened is that owing to the necessity to combat the virus of Newcastle disease in the Western Cape, other areas have had to be denuded of their stock inspectors. This has of course placed a great burden on the shoulders of those veterinary officials who had to remain in the other areas and carry on their normal work. I should also like to pay tribute to those people who, during severe staff shortages, are carrying on their work. In many cases they also have to cope with outbreaks of other virus diseases in other areas. We have, for example, had consistent outbreaks of rabies. Such outbreaks have in fact virtually become an annual occurrence in the Eastern Cape. These outbreaks of rabies necessitate large-scale vaccination campaigns. These veterinarians are doing a magnificent job of work. There is at the moment in my area, for example, only one veterinarian, namely the Senior State Veterinarian, due to the fact that some of the officials are away for training and others are helping to counter outbreaks of virus diseases. He therefore only has one assistant (and I am not sure whether he is a technical assistant or a stock inspector). These officials have an ever-increasing amount of paper work. Tney may also have vaccination campaigns on their hands when other virus diseases break out, while they still have to cope with the control of scheduled diseases, involving work such as tuberculosis tests. They may also have to produce vaccines, in this particular instance it being heartwater blood. They have to run a diagnostic laboratory and undertake extension services such as lectures to farmers’ associations. At the same time, any field veterinarian worth his salt will try to do a little research work in the course of his normal duties. One particular veterinarian has discovered something which was hitherto unknown about a particular virus, namely that the domestic cat, contrary to what has been thought previously, can be a carrier of the rabies virus. I do not think that it is amazing that veterinarians and other personnel leave the service of the Department. I think it is amazing that they do not all leave the service of the Department for private practice, or for employment with private firms. That they do not, says much for their loyalty and devotion to duty.

The hon. member for Nelspruit seemed to be a little at odds with the mover of this motion, in that he felt that the facilities at Onderstepoort for research into these virus diseases should not be divided and that work in this regard should be done there alone. The hon. the Minister mentioned that they have a separate section at Onderstepoort to cope with work of this kind. The Minister put his finger on a very important point when he described how one of the research workers there—and I think that the Minister said that his name was Dr. Howell—had gone overseas on a study tour and then left the service. This is the kernel of the whole matter. It is no good having facilities if you do not have the men to staff them, and if you do not train sufficient men to do the work. It is also to little avail if, when you have trained these men, you do not pay them a sufficiently large salary and give them sufficiently attractive conditions of service in order to keep them in the Department. During the Part Appropriation debate I pointed out —unfortunately the hon. the Minister was not present at the time—that a large number of veterinarians who are our senior research workers are leaving Onderstepoort. The hon. member for Nelspruit seems to be rather optimistic that Onderstepoort will be able to continue to do the work it has done in the past. I want to say that there is very grave doubt in this regard because its officials have been leaving in such great numbers. I do not wish to cover again the ground I covered during the Part Appropriation debate. I should, however, like to recapitulate what I said then. Over the two-year period from 1966 to 1967, 17 veterinarians left the staff of Onderstepoort. In the past year, namely from January, 1967 to February, 1968, another 12 have left. These 29 people who have left Onderstepoort are mostly members of the experienced research staff. It is not difficult to find replacements for these people. We can obtain the services of the newly qualified men but they need training.

The question of controlling the spread of virus diseases is a complex one. We know how easily these diseases spread. They can be spread by contact, and some even by birds. Under those circumstances, the approach of controlling them by vaccination is most important indeed. I agree with the hon. member for Karas who said that in this country we should indeed be capable of producing our own vaccines. I agree that our research workers do have the ability to do that. We would be able to produce our own vaccines. But I just want to illustrate what damage can be done by these resignations by pointing out that one of the 29 veterinarians who has left Onderstepoort, is a man who has produced a vaccine fairly recently. He produced a new tetanus vaccine and although tetanus is not caused by a virus, but a bacterium, the principle is nevertheless the same. Here we have a research worker who has left Onderstepoort who could, having produced the tetanus vaccine, well have been a suitable person to assist with the development of a new virus vaccine.

I want to recapitulate again that the reasons given by those veterinarians who left Onderstepoort were inadequate salaries, and lack of trained or qualified technical assistants. The latter lends point to that portion of our amendment which calls for more technical assistants to be trained. A third reason was the penal nature of contracts which they had to sign with the Department where they accept grants or bursaries for overseas or other further study, as might have been the case with the particular research worker mentioned by the hon. the Minister. I think this is an indication of something being very seriously wrong when an ex-Onderstepoort veterinarian can write to me in the following way:

The hon. the Minister may feel that that is an exaggeration. I think that it is an even more serious charge that these veterinarians from Onderstepoort when they submitted a memorandum to the head of the department through their Chief at Onderstepoort should make the following statement in the memorandum:

This is what 43 veterinarians on the staff of Onderstepoort say. I think that is an indictment of neglect on the part of this Government that the signatories to this petition should refer to Onderstepoort, which we have always regarded, and which is in fact regarded throughout the world, as a famous institute for research because of the magnificent work that has been done there, should refer to it, not as a famous institute, but as “this once famous institute”. In the interests of the livestock industry of this country, this kind of thing simply cannot be allowed to go on. I hope that the hon. the Minister who is new to this Department, is going to take a hard look at the conditions of service, the salaries and the various other complaints of the research workers there. I hope that he is not going to be deterred by too much talk about inflation in this regard. I hope that he is going to take his lead from the hon. member for Gordonia, who, when he introduced a motion earlier this session, used these words in Hansard of 13th February, 1968, column 463:

I think that this is the way in which we must approach this, whether it is research in virology or any other branch of veterinary science I hope that we will not hear too much of the inflationary situation because this might hold up this very necessary research for agricultural and other purposes. I say this because we have already this session heard the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development say in regard to his Department that, when it comes to the implementation of Government policy as far as the development of Bantustans is concerned, “dan maak dit nie saak wat dit kos nie”.

I have very little time left. I just want to say, further, that, even when one has the research staff, one still needs the field staff, the veterinarians, the technical assistants in the field, the technical assistants in the diagnostic laboratories and the stock inspectors to put into practice the discoveries and the results of the research undertaken at the Institute, whether it is the existing institute at Onderstepoort or a new institute. I appeal to the Minister to give the utmost priority to the training of people who are engaged in these duties so that we can overcome this chronic shortage of veterinarians in our country, of research workers in this particular line and of people like technical assistants who are absolutely essential to the research workers if the latter are to do their work in the way they should and the way they would like to.

The hon. member for Albany has distorted the purpose of this motion somewhat. I do not believe there is any argument between this side and that side of the House in regard to the purpose of the establishment of a virological institute, but he used his speech more for the purpose of describing the staff difficulties at Onderstepoort than the importance of the establishment of such an institution. After having listened to the hon. member for South Coast I no longer believe that man has to go to the moon. I think we have enough viruses of our own and that there is no need for him to bring us any more from there. I am very pleased that the Minister told us here that the Cabinet has already decided in 1961 to establish such an institute and that the plans will be completed in three month’s time. We realize that there are problems in regard to this matter, but we believe that, in time, these will be ironed out.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to sketch the problems we are experiencing in the far Northern Transvaal, and especially in the North-Western Transvaal, in regard to foot-and-mouth disease. The hon. member for Karas explained what the costs were, namely R10 million, and I do not want to repeat that. But there are also certain incalculable costs which affect the farmer and which we cannot convert to financial terms.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) said that Botswana had experienced seven outbreaks in 10 years. In the North-Western Transvaal we have, in the seven years between 1933 and 1961, also had seven outbreaks, and the last outbreak lasted continuously for three years from 1959 to 1960. Our problem is to a large extent the fact that we border on Botswana, and partly also on Rhodesia, and of course the greatest transference of virus occurs from those areas. Most of this boundary consists of a river, and as we know a river boundary is one of the most difficult to control. A game-proof fence has in fact been built on the Transvaal side of the river, but we cannot state precisely to what extent this helps. The Minister has said that the authorities believe that the fencing has in fact contributed to a reduction in the spread of the virus, but some of the farmers there do not believe that this is the case. Nobody can say precisely how the virus is transferred, and that is to a large extent our problem. We have always been groping in the dark to find the most effective method of controlling such an outbreak, but what is happening now? As soon as an outbreak takes place, a red line is drawn and all the stock, or any other contagious article such as meat, within that area may not be moved across that line. The entire area is placed under quarantine. Can hon. members imagine the inconvenience to and frustration of the people living in that area experience?

We are all aware of the fact that physical control is absolutely essential in order to control the spread of the virus, but the problem is that nobody can state with certainty, after contamination has taken place, the precise length of time that elapses before those cattle are no longer contaminated. An animal is contaminated, but does not show it, and if you remove it from that area, the disease breaks out again. It is therefore essential to apply that control, but one then experiences problems in regard to the people within that area. One finds a man who perhaps has a herd of cattle which are ready for the market, and he is placed under quarantine and his animals are not to leave that area, with the result that they lose condition. This is an incalculable expense which we cannot prove. Consequently the man is forced to overstock his farm owing to the fact that he cannot send the animals away, and then one also finds a drought such as the last one, which aggravates the problem even further. I am very grateful that the abattoir legislation which was passed last year is now making provision for a movable abattoir which can go into that area to slaughter cattle which are ready for the market, but I do not know whether it is in operation yet.

The main thing is that the people in the area do not always accept these circumstances with equanimity. Many of the older farmers in particular are extremely dissatisfied with it. They do not always agree with the scientists. There is one old farmer whom I know very well who was a transport rideg before the rinderpest and who used oxen. He did not believe in veterinary surgeons, but believed firmly that lard and sulphur was the best remedy for an animal suffering from foot-and-mouth disease. He states that he had cured numerous oxen in this way. With the outbreak in 1933 they experienced a great deal of difficulty with the old farmer. He threatened that any veterinary surgeon or inspector who came within range of his .303 rifle, would never inspect another animal. I must say that he subsequently calmed down when his children came to talk to him about the matter. Another difficulty is this. The cattle of people living there have to be inspected regularly. Anybody who is well acquainted with the bushveld knows how difficult it is to round up those animals every week or so, and then they have to wait for an inspector who never turns up because his motor broke down on the bad roads. You can think for yourselves what happens to the poor member of Parliament who represents those farmers.

I do not want to waste any more time. This motion of the hon. member for Karas has my very strong support. We are all pleased that it has been brought before the House. If all the costs increase, the actual costs which are incurred by the State in combating foot-and-mouth disease, plus those costs which cannot be calculated, and if we bear in mind that according to the hon. member it would only cost R2 million to establish such a virological institute, I want to say that the ultimate benefits to the country and the industry as a whole will be much greater than we may expect. Combating by means of innoculation will be the cheapest and most efficient way.

With reference to the gratifying announcement of the hon. the Minister, firstly, that they realize the need for such a virological research institute; secondly, that the plans have almost been completed; thirdly, that the building is on the list of priorities; and fourthly, that we already have at our disposal the necessary trained staff to undertake this research, I want to ask leave to withdraw my motion.

With the permission of the House, I wish to withdraw my amendment.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.

I move—

I hope that in introducing this Bill we can agree to have a free vote of the House on what should be a matter of general interest to both sides. I am quite certain that I am a lonely voice speaking on these issues in this House, although the public interest in these matters is very great indeed. I wish to make it quite clear at the start that there are no political implications whatsoever attached to these discussions. The extent of the general interest in the legal position of married women in South Africa can perhaps best be gauged by the fact that two hon. Senators on the Government side in the Other Place set down motions very similar to the contents of this Bill, which were discussed this session. They concern the question of the two systems of marriage and the question of a woman being able to stand surety under certain conditions.

Another proof of the public interest in having the remaining legal disabilities of married women in South Africa tidied up once and for all is the number of letters and telegrams of approval I have received in connection with this Bill. Most of them come from individual women whose lives are deeply affected by the existing position. Four leading women’s organizations in South Africa, the Federation of Business and Professional Women’s Clubs, the National Council of Women, the Union of Jewish Women and the National Union of Distributive Workers, which as you know is affiliated to Tucsa, have given me their unequivocal and enthusiastic support, and I suggest that they represent a considerable cross-section of the South African electorate. I want to quote very briefly from the letters I have received from these organizations. The President of the National Council of Women wrote to me early in February and said—

The letter then went on to say—

Then the national secretary of the National Union of Distributive Workers wrote to me on 1st March and said—

The Union of Jewish Women wrote to me on 22nd February through their national secretary, who said—

Hon. members, I think, would do well to realize that women voters far outnumber men voters in South Africa to-day. We now have a situation in which requests for changes in these matters have come both from the Government side and from the Opposition in our present Parliament. I would say that most of our difficulties in South Africa stem originally from the dual system of marriage and the exercise of the marital power by the husband, which is in itself an entirely antiquated concept. The ridiculous thing is that a woman in South Africa to-day can do practically anything she likes provided she is single. Then she has all the luck in the world. She can have sole guardianship rights over an illegitimate child, but she does not have the same rights over a legitimate child. If she is single, she has equal status in law with men, and so do widows and divorcees. A married woman’s rights to contract are not but should be identical with those of her husband. It is true of course in South African law at present that in a marriage out of community of property the wife’s possessions cannot be sold or spent by her husband, but in return for this so-called concession to her independent control over what, after all, is her own property, he is not obliged to leave her any money or property on his death, nor in the case of a divorce, unless ordered to do so by a court. Married in community of property, of course, as hon. members know, she can claim half of the estate. If we were to have one system of marriage, i.e. out of community of property, I make so bold as to say that the laws of succession could profitably be amended to make it obligatory on both parties to leave half or at least a portion of their estate to the other party at death. The present inequitable arrangement of joint but not equal guardianship of children in our marriage laws should also go. Under the existing dispensation, in the event of any dispute, the father’s will must prevail, and he has this right in spite of the fact that the married mother is by law equally liable for the support of her children. This seems to me to be grossly unfair. It is ironical that, where European women the world over are concerned, they have to struggle for their rights in this field, whereas Moslem women, in terms of ritual laid down in the Koran, have for 1500 years enjoyed all the rights of equal pay and opportunities of work and promotion, the right to inherit and dispose of property at will and the right to the custody of minor children in the event of any dispute or a separation or a divorce. Sir, I wonder sometimes how long it will take the South African public—and by that I mean our male colleagues of course—to realize that the demand for equality and recognition, in a legal sense, in no way detracts from our awareness as women of the greatest responsibility in the world that we have as married women. I refer, of course, to the intelligent and the enlightened rearing of our children through their years of growth. We do not have to be reminded of this responsibility in this day and age.

Sir, since the passing of Mrs. Bertha Solomons’ Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, which was based on the findings of the 1949 Women’s Legal Disabilities Commission’s report, 15 long years have passed. During that time South Africa has experienced a phenomenal industrial expansion, in the course of which thousands of South African women have been drawn into employment in the professional, technical and clerical fields and they are earning very good money to-day. Thousands more have passed through our technical colleges and universities with the result that to-day by far the majority of them possess sufficient knowledge and know-how to handle their own financial affairs. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member over there can grunt as much as he likes. The old paternal idea, although I know it dies very hard, that the poor little woman does not understand anything about these things, is to-day just so much rubbish. Sir, one clear indication of South Africa’s increasing prosperity and of women’s awareness of the disabilities connected with marriage in community of property, is the rapidly closing gap in the numbers of those married in community of property and those with antenuptial contracts, since the days when the Women’s Legal Disabilities Commission reported in 1949.

Sir, an examination of the records shows that of the 510,227 marriages contracted in the Union between 1937 and 1946, only 76,174, i.e. 15.7 per cent, were contracted out of community of property. At the same time 424,053, approximately 80 per cent, in those days, were contracted in community of property. The situation has changed radically since then —a sure indication of the lines along which women are thinking in this country to-day. According to the figures supplied to me by the Director of Census and Statistics in December last year, during the period 1947 to 1966 a total of 559,829 marriages were contracted in South Africa. Of these 352,577 were contracted in community of property and 207,252 were contracted out of community. In other words, 38 per cent of all marriages during this period were contracted out of community of property, i.e. with antenuptial contracts, notwithstanding the fact that it costs anything up to R20 in attorneys fees to obtain such a document. Thus we have an increase of from 15.7 per cent in 1946 to 38 per cent in 1966 of women who opted to be married out of community of property. Sir, why were they willing to go to such expense? For the very simple reason that with an antenuptial contract a married woman has at least limited control over her own property and she has certain contractual rights, even if she runs the risk of being disinherited. To 207,252 South African women this risk was worth taking during the period I have just reviewed. I think these facts are very significant indeed. They seem to prove that more and more South African women are earning money and are determined to improve their position and to gain whatever degree of independence our Roman-Dutch law, with so many antiquated concepts, will allow them. All this, Sir, in spite of the sacrifice that they may be called upon to make under an antenuptial contract,namely that they may be disinherited. The figures are going up steadily.

Let me quote from two recent Press reports which argue in support of the financial integrity of women in this field and give one quotation from the report of the Women’s Legal Disability Commission, all three of which, I think, are relevant to my argument. The first is a quotation from The Cape Argus of 9th June of last year—

“According to figures released by the Johannesburg Stock Exchange,” he said, “women represent about 35 per cent of shareholders. That is a very large percentage and must run very close to the percentage of women stockholders in the United States”.

The second report was also published in The Argus on 3rd May of last year. It is headed “Financially Muddled Women—Myth is Exploded”. The article reads as follows—

Nearly three out of five women keep their own separate account after marriage, and less than five per cent seek regular overdrafts.

Mr. Ronald Smith, the bank’s chief general manager, said:“I think it could be said that women are better customers taken all round. They rarely give any trouble. In fact, we are aiming to attract more of them.”

The last quotation that I want to make in regard to community of property comes from the report of the Women’s Legal Disability Commission of 1949 (page 11, para. 89). I should like hon. members to listen very carefully to this—

Sir, I say that what applied in terms of abuse of the marital power, as conceded by the commission in 1949, applies equally to-day. The whole object of this Bill is to modify this power still further in two specific ways, without tampering with the framework of community itself, unless, of course, the Minister is prepared to consider a change of system.

With regard to the background to the present Bill, for the sake of those legal pundits in this House—I know there are many and I treat them with great respect—who may have grave misgivings about my ability or right to introduce draft legislation about so complicated a matter as this—and it is very complicated indeed—since it is common knowledge that I have no legal training myself, let me inform the House first of all that the original text was drafted by an advocate; secondly, that the Bill was then submitted by me for comment to a number of legal authorities in this field— male advocates—and that it was submitted to the Johannesburg Stock Exchange, who appointed a special legal sub-committee to examine it. I would like to inform the House that the Stock Exchange suggestions have now been incorporated and they have informed me of their approval of the principles of the Bill. Furthermore, a copy of the original text was sent towards the end of last year to the law societies of all four provinces. The Bill was also submitted by me to the General Council of the Bar. They suggested three amendments, two of which have been incorporated in the text.

Sir, dealing with the Bill in general I would say, firstly, that, notwithstanding some improvements introduced by the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, and later amending Acts, the "legal position of a woman married in community of property and of profit and loss, and subject to the marital powers of her husband, is still essentially that of a minor. And, secondly, that even a woman married out of community of property and of profit and loss and without the husband’s marital power, does not enjoy complete equality with her husband, more particularly in regard to the right to contract and in regard to minor children born of the marriage.

To deal briefly with the contents of the Bill, clause 1 enables a woman married in community of property to make use of her own income and assets either for the purpose of investing them or for the purpose of entering into agreements of purchase and sale. Additional provisions bring the clause into line with the existing law under the Matrimonial Affairs Act, as amended. The Stock Exchange committee referred me to Sections 4 and 5 of the Securities Transfer Act of 1965 (Act No. 69 of 1965), and after consultation with a leading male Cape Town advocate, I am satisfied that clause 1 does not fall foul of the sections of the Act I have referred to. In fact, I fail to see any connection with this Bill at all. In any case, for the general purposes of the Bill, a “security” is expressly defined in terms of the Securities Transfer Act.

Clause 2 implements the principle of the equality of the sexes in regard to the guardianship and custody of minor children born of a marriage. The cases, and I refer particularly to Fletcher v. Fletcher, 1948 (1) S.A. 130 (A.D.), and the Legislature (see for example section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953) have long recognized that where minor children are concerned their interest is the paramount consideration. I think it is therefore only a corollary that in questions of guardianship and custody of minor children, there should be no scope for any discrimination whatsoever between father and mother. May I say, Sir, that there are ample precedents in modern legal systems for this situation. Let me give a few examples. In Sweden, for instance, husband and wife enjoy complete equality as regards the person of a minor child. Article 3 (2) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of West Germany of 23rd May, 1949, as amended, pronounces the principle of the equality of the sexes. Sir, it is interesting to note here that the further provision that, in the event of disagreement, the father’s wish should prevail, although he had to give due attention to the mother’s view, was declared to be inconsistent with the constitution and was declared null and void by the Federal Constitution Court in Germany in 1959.

As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Guardianship and Custody Act of 1925 reads as follows—

Sir, I suggest that that is the kind of situation that we should like to see here in South Africa, if only we were not so old-fashioned in our approach.

Clause 3 of the Bill brings the wording of section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act into line with the principle contained in the second clause, which I have already discussed in brief. In addition, it expressly includes in the orders which the court or judge may make in the interests of the minor child, an order awarding the custody or guardianship of such minor to a person other than the parent. Without going beyond the common law, it also empowers the court or judge seized with the matter under section 5 of the Matrimonial Affairs Act to make the necessary maintenance and contribution orders. Clause 4 deals simply with the title of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want for a moment to return to the argument on the right to contract. Where the marital power continues to exist the wife has no general power to enter into contracts, except that she can make contracts and appear in the courts in relation to any business which she carries on as a public trader, only with her husband’s consent. Assets which accrue from such trading form part of the joint estate. She has also, of course, the right to incur debts for household necessities, but by law the husband is the guardian of his wife and the curator of her property. If he is a reasonable man, we may say that things will go smoothly, but if not, life could be very difficult indeed. This means that in a community of property marriage wherever the marital power exists the only limitation on the husband’s power of disposal of the assets, except for those specific instances set out in the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, is his wife’s right to obtain relief from the courts if he has become prodigal, or if he attempts to defraud her. In such cases she may obtain an interdict and, if they are married in community of property, the judge may order a separation of the joint estate. One may well ask how much of the estate is likely to be left by the time that stage is reached.

The origins of the system of marriage in community of property go back to the 16th century, and are attributed by legal historians to the customs of the nomadic German tribes. Whatever their origin, it remains a fact that we in South Africa have been wedded to them literally and metaphorically ever since. The fact of the system having been in practice in South Africa for over 300 years does not necessarily make it sound in law under present-day conditions. However, I and many with me, are aware of the deep-seated male prejudice that exists in regard to the retention of the system of community of property. All that I am concerned to do is to amend existing legislation so as to give the wife a fairer deal in relation to her husband and his powers, a deal which I think is consistent with developments in the modern world.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with a married woman’s right to enter into purchase agreements and deal in shares without the consent or assistance of her husband. The clause states clearly that she may do these things “out of means derived by her from earnings, inheritances or gifts from any other source” in her own name and right. The clause makes it equally clear that she will also be considered “liable to all the obligations attaching to such agreements …. It will be noted that there is no question here of her using the husband’s money nor of pledging his credit. I would say here that to the extent that both are liable, jointly and severally, in terms of section 3 of the Matrimonail Affairs Act of 1953, and when married in community of property also, “for all debts incurred by either spouse in respect of necessaries for the joint household”, the wife should surely under those circumstances be given as much freedom as her husband when it comes to a right to contract where her own assets are concerned.

I think it should be made clear to the House, in case there are hon. members who are not aware of it, that in any marriage under the system of community of property the wife is subject to the risk that the husband may dissipate the joint estate, either through incompetence or design. [Interjection.] Many husbands, I may say, are thoroughly incompetent. If he accomplishes this before she is able to obtain relief from the courts she cannot recover what he has already dissipated. In other words, the position to-day is that the husband has sufficient power to manipulate everything they jointly are supposed to possess, with certain exceptions as are set out in the 1953 Act.

Have you ever seen a wife manipulate her husband round her little finger?

Order!

Apart from these specific instances, he retains unfettered control.

For the purposes of this Bill it should be obvious that no firm or individual would lightly enter into a purchase agreement with anyone who could not provide proof of adequate financial backing or creditworthiness, as the ex pression goes, in their own right. The husband, in fact, would have a valid claim at law against his wife if she used assets for the payment of purchase agreements or shares from any source other than those specified in the Bill. As I said, it should, moreover, be remembered that in community of property they are jointly responsible for all household debts, so that a wife can be held responsible for her husband’s indiscretions, by means of purchase agreements or anything else, unless they specifically concern the supply of intoxicating liquor.

I want to make the point that if there are to be disabilities or freedoms, whichever you like, attached to the right to contract, let these be reciprocal as between the husband and the wife. Then, at least, it can be argued that they are fair. I think it is further necessary to point out that it is extremely tedious for women married out of community of property to have to produce their antenuptial contracts as evidence of their right to contract. The necessity to do so entails a number of difficulties, delays and, at times, consequential loss. In any event, let me say, intelligent women in the world to-day consider it an unnecessary humiliation to be asked to produce these documents.

Business men and attorneys, building societies, banks, insurance companies, as well as stockbrokers, with considerable experience of the difficulties involved, have for a very long time urged the need to change this system. To this should be added the argument that the majority of our European women live in or around our urban areas to-day, where the type of transaction referred to in this Bill has become a daily commonplace.

I just want to say a few words about the common estate. In dealing with the wife’s inherent right in terms of clause 1 of the Bill, to deal in securities, there is surely no valid reason why a wife married in community should not be free to control, without her husband’s interference, the administration of certain assets acquired by her during the marriage, while retaining those assets as part of the common estate. I am not asking here that when a marriage is in community the wife should be in a position to create an estate separate from the common estate. That is not the intention of this Bill. To accord the wife the right to acquire a separate estate would create an inequality against the husband, unless he were accorded a similar right. That, however, is not the intention of the Bill.

As far as clause 1 (2) is concerned, it has been suggested to me that this would prevent the husband from furnishing proper income tax returns. I think that is nonsense. If a married couple are not prepared to co-operate over a matter of this kind, there is nothing to prevent the husband or the wife from asking for a separate assessment for income tax purposes.

In case certain hon. members may think I am going too far in my plea for greater contractual freedom for women, let me remind them of the rights a married man has in law as it stands at present. As administrator of his wife’s property the husband may without his wife’s knowledge or consent, enter into contracts which are binding on her, not only during the subsistence of the marriage but also after its dissolution. The husband may. without his wife’s knowledge or consent, alienate or encumber property, movable or immovable, which forms part of the joint estate or of her separate estate. If he grants a mortgage bond or a servitude over land forming part of the joint estate, the land remains subject to this burden even after dissolution of the marriage. If an inheritance is offered to the wife the husband decides whether she should accept or repudiate it. The wife could of course have redress by going to court if it could be proved that the inheritance was likely to increase the assets of the joint estate.

The fact remains, and we cannot get away from it, that in the absence of an antenuptial contract expressly excluding the husband’s marital power, a married woman in South Africa to-day is reduced to a legal position analogous to that of a minor under guardianship This is a ridiculous situation, and South African women are no longer prepared to tolerate it. She has no locus standi in judicio. People, particularly our menfolk, and attorneys most of all, refer to the marital power as a kind of guardianship. They say to women, “It is only for your own good; it is meant to protect you.” I want to quote what Professor Hahlo, who is perhaps the leading expert in this field, wrote in his book The South African Law of Husband and Wife (1963). We find the following on page 147—

Those are not my views but they are the assessment of South Africa’s leading authority on these matters. Professor Hahlo says further that it does not normally fall within the authority of the wife to rent a flat or a house. A judicial decision exists on this. Neither has she the authority to book holiday accommodation, for which another judicial decision also exists. For these contracts she requires her husband’s consent. Did you ever hear of anything quite so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker? So much for the existing common law decisions on the subject.

In pledging her husband’s credit for household necessities, Hahlo states quite clearly at page 160 of his book: “It is submitted that no hard and fast rule can be laid down, but that each case must be dealt with on its own merits.” In other words, my point is this. The husband can do precisely what he likes with her estate and his own, whereas she is subject to judicial decisions in terms of which there exists no clarity whatsoever.

Since I have relied upon Professor Hahlo for a good deal of my information, let me add that he also states specifically at page 169—

In conclusion let me say that Hahlo then raises the point as to whether she is free to dispose of her wages as she pleases, an aspect which is dealt with in this Bill. He suggests that this proposition finds what he describes as “some support” in the judgment of Mr. Justice James in Jermyn v. Jermyn, but says finally: “However, all these problems will have to await final clarification by the courts.”

It is the express intention in this Bill to clarify the position at least with regard to purchase agreements and stocks and shares by statute. I really must ask why we must wait until some unfortunate litigant has to pay costs in court for a decision to be made on issues which could be quite straightforward in our law.

One final word on guardianship before I sit down. In normal cases, subject to the power of the court as upper guardian of all minors to intervene in their interests, the father is the natural guardian of the children until they attain majority. He alone has the right to manage and administer their earnings and property, except what is bequeathed to them by others. He alone has control over their education, secular and religious, and has the right to bring and defend actions on their behalf in the courts. As things stand to-day, he shares with the mother the control of the persons of the children and the consent of both parents is required for the minor’s marriage, but, as we know, in the event of a difference of opinion, the father’s will must prevail.

When the mother, or anyone else, is given the custody of a child without limitation or further definition, the father’s natural right to control the person and education of the child is displaced without being extinguished. In other words, the father’s other rights of guardianship remain in him unless a specific application has been made to court at the time of the divorce or judicial separation, or where the parents are living apart for the court to “grant either parent the sole guardianship … or sole custody of the minor”, if it is proved that it would be in the interests of the minor to do so. This is set out quite clearly in section 5 of the 1953 Act.

The courts do not appear to have defined completely the circumstances in which a father can be removed from his guardianship, again according to Professor Hahlo, but that he can be so removed is clear. It would surely be fairer, and this is my argument, as set out in this Bill, to accept the principle of equal guardianship, with the right of both parents of recourse to court, preferably to a judge in chambers, in order to avoid publicity on the subject.

Section 5 (1) of the 1953 Act dealing with guardianship and custody of minors is permissive only; in other words, the court may grant sole custody or guardianship on the application of either parent. But since it has always been the legal custom in South Africa to leave guardianship with the father, even where the mother is granted custody or sole custody, I think it is necessary now to clarify the position from the mother’s point of view.

Unlike the law relating to the maintenance of a divorced spouse, which is based entirely on statute and is clear, the law relating to the custody and guardianship of minor children on divorce or separation is based partly on statute and partly on common law. Where custody and guardianship are separated, the custodian parent has the care and control of the minor’s person; the guardian parent has the control and administration of his property and business affairs. And this is most unsatisfactory. It has been my experience in dealing with dozens of cases, that couples continue their disputes, unfortunately, after the dissolution of a marriage and that the father has all the scope that he wants to make a confounded nuisance of himself.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he does, frequently for reasons of sheer malice and the wife’s so-called powers of custody become nothing but a farce. I know lots of cases where this has happened. Like the term sole custody, the term sole guardianship is a creation of the 1953 Act. There is no definition anywhere of either expression as to what is really meant. And as long as guardianship and custody are not both specifically allocated by an order of court, all the rights of natural guardianship rest with the father. It is as Professor Harlow stated that in practice the courts are reluctant to appoint the mother as the guardian of the minor unless there is some good reason for doing so. My comment on that is that only too often good reasons for depriving a father of his guardianship do not become apparent until long after the legal proceedings are over and done with. I am familiar with a number of cases—I have them in my own constituency—where the wife has to employ an attorney, permanently, and at great cost, to watch her interests and those of her children. This has to be done all the time. If she did not do so, her maintenance would lapse and she would have to go to court for redress. The father’s powers of guardianship very often lead to intimidation and interference of a most obnoxious kind.

Do you not like men?

I like them very much. It is true that an order as to custody and guardianship or access is always liable to variation for good cause shown, by the courts. A number of legal proceedings exist to prove this, even where the order was originally made in terms of a consent paper by both parties. My point is, that with our system of joint guardianship but not equal guardianship, in 90 per cent of cases the onus is upon the mother to go to the court for redress with all the attendant anxiety and expense. And if one looks back over the last 50 years one finds that the general trend both in case law and of legislation has been to lay emphasis on what is best in the interests of the minor rather than to further the concept of parental rights whatever they may happen to be. And that is what I am concerned with here in this Bill. I maintain, with the greatest conviction, that the interests of any minor are best served where the rights of guardianship in law are vested equally in both parents. I maintain that all these matters in fact require very serious consideration.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member who introduced this motion knows, I do not support this Bill. Unfortunately I am subject to a time restriction and will not be able to devote much time to the elucidation which the hon. member has now given us. I shall confine myself to a large extent to the Bill. But because it is very clear to me from the hon. member’s elucidation where she gets her idea from, I would just like to read to her briefly a few sentences out of the book, A Social History of English Law, by Alan Harding. On page 403 I read the following—

I am opposed to this Bill because in my opinion it is unnecessary in toto. It is unnecessary in so far as the hon. member’s proposals are applicable. I am not even mentioning some of them which are so irreconcilable with the present principles that it is impossible even to introduce them. It is unnecessary in this sense that everything which is being envisaged in the Bill is already possible at the moment. I would just like to mention one example. The effect of section 1 of the Bill can be obtained simply by entering into an antenuptial contract, with the exclusion of the marital power of the man. We must guard against making too many statutory encroachments on our common law. What the Roman-Dutch legal system is pre-eminently known for is that it is so subtle and flexible. When we tamper with it too much by means of legislation, we are prejudicing that subtlety and flexibility. But I am also opposed to it because this Bill is vague and confusing. If it were to be placed on the Statute Book in its present form, I foresee unprecedented chaos in our family and in our marriage law. There are a few examples I want to mention. In the first instance the Bill does not distinguish between marriages in and marriages out of community of property. Clause 1 deals with the means acquired by a married woman, but it does not mention whether, or not the woman in question was married in community of property. It is essential that the Bill should state which women it has in mind, because the nature of the things it deals with must be judged on that basis. I maintain that this omission is confusing, because according to our common law all assets which are acquired in the case of a marriage in community of property, by either of the two parties, are joint assets. They become the joint owners of those assets. Nowhere does this Bill state that it is doing away with community of property. These goods or values which clause 1 deals with, are in the case of a marriage in community of property immediately included in the joint estate when the woman acquires it. But those goods which the man acquires are also included in that joint will immediately. And then both parties to that marriage are immediately owners thereof for an undivided half. But what is the effect of this section now?

You missed the point.

No, I am coming to that now. The effect of this motion is that the woman alone and without the assistance and consent of her husband should be able to dispose of assets in the joint will of which the husband has also become owner. We cannot allow it. This motion is in conflict with the basic principle in our marriage law, namely the principle of joint responsibility. And I want to tell the hon. member that this principle of joint responsibility is accepted by every sensible person as the basis of a marriage, and not only of marriage law. But now it is being eliminated by these irresolute provisions. In its place the principle of what I want to call the principle of everyone for himself is being substituted. I maintain that this motion is aimed at disrupting our marriage laws for no good reason whatsoever. This rejection of the principle of joint responsibility and the substitution therefor of the principle of everyone for himself—and in addition to that as I shall demonstrate in a moment, every-one for himself in secret—contains, to my mind, the seeds of the dissolution of the marriage. I have said that this Bill does not distinguish between marriages in or marriages out of community of property. As far as the marriage out of community of property is concerned there are two courses open to prospective married couples. On the one hand the antenuptial contract can be entered into in which the marital power of the man is excluded. To-day—and I want to concede this point to the hon. member—this is a fairly general occurrence. That is what the hon. member envisages with section 1. As I have said, the means already exist. And that is why it is unnecessary. It need not be laid down by law. But we also have the antenuptial contract where the marital power of the man is retained. The effect of that, in brief, is that the assets in the estate are in fact kept separate—each party has a separate estate—but the man controls the goods and his assistance to the wife is still required in respect of certain legal actions. As the name indicates an antenuptial contract is a contract. Before the marriage is concluded, the parties decide first upon what form of marriage they would prefer. And in most of these cases I believe they take this decision after they have consulted with, and in conjunction with their parents, who advise them. In this way they decide whether the marriage will be in or out of community of property and if it is out of community of property, whether the marital power of the man is going to be retained or not. The parties have freedom of contract. This freedom of contract is one of the characteristics of a democratic state. It is a privilege of every man and every woman who is a citizen or citizens of a democratic state. Now the parties conclude a contract to the effect that after solemnization of the marriage the estates will be separated. But, the marital power of the man is retained. And it is precisely in this regard that we now find in this Bill one of its most far-reaching provisions. What it amounts to is that despite the fact that the parties have contracted that the marital power be retained, that marital power may now be nullified. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a terrible thing. It means that the hon. member is asking, by means of this legislation, that the basic principle of freedom of contract should be violated. That is governmental compulsion at its worst. This is fascism.

But let us go a step further. Suppose the wife was married in community of property and that she has now with money and means —as the Bill puts it—which were brought into the joint estate by her, purchased something or registered shares in her name. Then we must remember that these goods still go into the joint estate. These goods are therefore jointly owned. It belongs to the woman as much as to the man. Now the Bill does not state that joint responsibility is excluded. In other words, our common law is being applied. The proposed section 4 (2) provides that no person may furnish that husband with details in regard to those things. It must be kept secret from the husband. But it is a fundamental principle of our law that every owner or joint owner of property is entitled to full information in regard thereto. But the intention of this proposed section is now to exclude it. The effect of this subsection is irreconcilable with that principle. It is also irreconcilable with certain other principles of our statute law. Let us look at the case in which a creditor has obtained a judgment against a man married in community of property. Now he wants to send the bailiff or the messenger of the court to seize the goods in order to redeem the debts in terms of the judgment. It is now the duty of that man, when the bailiff turns up, to point out to him any movable goods which he can seize. But this man cannot point out all those movable goods because he does not know which goods are included in the joint estate. Surely that hamstrings the application and implementation of existing rights. Let us take the Insolvency Act as an example. A person who wants to surrender an estate voluntarily is obliged to inform the Supreme Court under oath in full in respect of the assets which are included in his estate. He must enumerate them fully. If he does not do so, he is committing a felony. Then he is liable to criminal punishment. It is not only the man who willingly surrenders his estate, it also applies to the man who is sequestrated by another person. After the sequestration he must furnish the curator of the insolvent estate with a full enumeration of all the assets in that estate. If he does not do so he is also punishable by law and guilty of an offence. Now this Bill wants to make things impossible for that man. This law-drafter is now asking that the Legislature of the country should introduce a measure which would make every person whose estate could possibly be sequestrated—and not one of us sitting here is altogether free of that possibility—guilty in advance of a criminal offence. Such a measure is not only confusing, it is not consistent with the good order for which every legislator must take steps to assure through his laws. Apart from what the hon. member has said in regard to possible solutions, this Bill is also in conflict with the Income Tax Act. All of us must in our returns each year furnish not only the details of our own assets, but also the details of the assets and liabilities of our wives, whether we are married in community of property or not. This Bill does not take that into account. The hon. member has suggested a solution which I do not think can be accepted. This Bill is in conflict with the existing statute law, and must therefore be legally rejected.

But, Mr. Speaker, I want to leave the legal aspects of this matter at that. I want to tell the hon. member that I do not like her Bill. I do not like the undertones of this Bill. The entire purport of this Bill is to prejudice and disrupt our existing family and marriage law and by so doing to discredit it amongst our young people, the young prospective married couples. I cannot escape from the feeling, and in her elucidation the hon. member confirmed me in this, that the actual point of departure here is that no man is to be trusted, that it is necessary to do away with the principle of community of property, and that it is necessary to do away with the retention of the marital power of the man in the antenuptial contract. Surely that is not so. Surely this principle is not as archaic and bad as the hon. member wants to suggest. In our marriage and family law there are existing principles which have been tested and carried into effect over the centuries. All the marriages in South Africa are woven around these principles. They contain elements of the Roman, the German and Canonical law, which is our Roman-Dutch Law to-day. It is not archaic, as the hon. member has suggested.

I have already discussed one of these principles, i.e. the principle of joint responsibility. Surely it is a good principle, and it is basic to our marriage and our marriage law. When two young people marry, they begin a new relationship, a new family and a new estate. Most of them begin together with equally little. Is that not a fine thing? Is that not ideal? How well does this principle not compare with what I have called the principle of the Bill, which is everyone for himself?

Mr. Speaker, there is another principle of our marriage and our family law, namely the principle of unitary control. In fact our law requires unitary control for the sake of good order. Only one party governs a country at a time. This unitary control must be control by that person who, according to human experience in general, has the most experience and is the best equipped to exercise control. Surely there is nothing wrong with that.

You must be careful.

It is not necessary for me to be careful. I am not mentioning any names. I am merely stating that there is nothing wrong with this principle. In this regard the Legislature allows itself to be led by what it knows works best in the vast majority of cases. But in cases where it does not work best, the Legislature concedes that where a marriage contract is impracticable, it can be changed.

In regard to the opposite of unitary control, namely undivided control, I do not want to say anything. I only want to ask: Can you imagine a company with two managing directors who always have equal status? Can you imagine a South Africa being simultaneously governed by the National Party and the United Party? [Interjections.] Can one contain the policies of these two simultaneously in law? Can you imagine that?

Mr. Speaker, there is a third principle in our marriage law which I want to mention, namely that our marriages are principally a relationship uberrimae fide, a relationship of the utmost good faith. The man and the wife stand in a relationship of trust in regard to each other. There ought to be no concealments or secrets, as envisaged in subsection (2), nor secret assets and properties. I cannot imagine a greater threat to marriage than such secrets, such concealments in married life.

Mr. Speaker, I want to plead for the retention of the well tried principles of our marriage law. I want to concede that it does not work in 100 per cent of the cases; but I do want to tell the hon. member that 99 per cent of our marriages are lasting, and that they are lasting as a result of those principles which I have mentioned. I want to plead that we should guard against breaking down and undermining the status and prestige of the head of our family. But I want to add to that that heads of families must act in such a way that they are at all times worthy of their prestige and status.

Lastly I want to plead that, instead of wanting to introduce new principles, we should be such an example in mind and spirit to our young people that we will educate them so that their approach to marriage will be in accordance with the principles of joint responsibility, patriarchal control and the greatest good faith.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterkloof has opposed the Bill, and he has presented to the House certain arguments to justify his opposition. It is a pity that the hon. member has not disclosed to the House what Bill he is opposing, because he cannot possibly be opposing the Bill before the House because his arguments have nothing to do—at any rate, most of his arguments—with the Bill which is before the House. He has suggested that the Bill is likely to make certain drastic changes to the existing laws of marriage and so on. This is not the case. The Bill Is not intended to make these changes, nor does it do so in practice. But I would suggest that, whilst the hon. member for Waterkloof has expressed wonderful sounding phrases which may impress the voters in his “verkrampte” constituency, they have very little to do with the Bill which is before the House.

Order! What does the hon. member mean by “verkrampte”?

Mr. Speaker, I would define “verkrampte” in this context as extremely narrow-minded.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Perhaps the hon. member will give me a little time to speak. Then I might answer his question. Time is getting on and I must get on with my speech. I want at the outset to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Wynberg for her efforts throughout the years to attempt to improve the lot of married women and I might add also, Mr. Speaker, to improve the lot of the …

Bachelors !

… all parts of the population group in this country. In view of the attitude of the hon. member for Waterkloof and the allegations that he made as to the effects of this Bill, it seems to me that at this stage of the debate it is essential to look at the Bill in its proper context.

As a bachelor.

At the outset I want to emphasize that the Bill does not seek to bring about any radical changes in the system of marriage or in the rights of married women. Therefore this is not a great debate in which the women of South Africa through the hon. member for Wynberg are attempting to make far-reaching changes in the marriage laws and in the laws of custody in their interests and against the interests of the menfolk in South Africa, as has been suggested by the hon. member for Waterkloof. The Bill does no such thing.

What does the Bill seek to do? It introduces two changes only. Both these changes are of a limited nature. The first change seeks merely to allow a wife more scope in dealing with her own money and assets. I would ask the hon. member for Waterkloof: Does he see anything wrong in that?

Have you ever been married?

But that is already possible to do.

The second change is an extension of the guardianship and custody of minor children. As the hon. member for Wynberg has pointed out, our courts in South Africa have always emphasized that in matters of guardianship and custody, what is of paramount importance, are not the rights of either parent, but what is in the best interest of the child. Therefore, any extension which is sought to be made in respect of the rights of custody and guardianship must not be looked at as an extension ot the rights of the mother, but an extension of the protection of the minor children of the marriage.

I want to deal with the first issue in this Bill. The Bill seeks to amend the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953, so as to allow a married woman to enter into purchase agreements and to deal in securities without the consent or assistance of her husband. I will submit and I will show that this is a logical, a reasonable and a necessary extension of the law as it exists to-day. In order to explain this to the hon. members in this House, and particularly to the hon. member for Waterkloof, it may be wise for me to go back to the basic concept of our law of marriage, and trace briefly the developments that have taken place.

Our common law in South Africa stems from two basic concepts, namely community of property and the exercise of the marital power by the husband. This concept originated many centuries ago as a development of the attitude which prevailed many centuries ago, namely that upon marriage, a wife became more or less a slave or chattel of her husband for him to do with as he wished. [Interjections.]

From the interjections we have had from time to time in this debate, it is quite clear that there are many hon. members in this House who would like to see the old system being reverted to. I should imagine, however, that there are few women who would be willing to do so. I would therefore suggest to them that they are perhaps living in a fool’s paradise and that they must accept the inevitable. This attitude became antiquated centuries ago, and in its place came the attitude that the wife was little above the status of a minor. Following from that the attitude was that she required to be given security and to be protected and above all that she required to be disciplined, controlled and that the husband should manage the joint affairs. Unfortunately for some of the hon. members here to-day, this also became largely antiquated through the years. But despite these changes which have been made from time to time, in terms of our law to-day a woman married in community of property and subject to the marital power, has in some respects still the status of a minor. Although we in South Africa retain this basic system, we have through the years made radical changes in the contractual rights of the wife and in her right to deal with her own funds. The most radical change came about in 1953 when the Matrimonial Affairs Act was passed. In terms of that Act several amendments were made relating to the property rights of the spouses so that property which came to the wife through her own earnings, through inheritance and so on, would not be subject to the control of the husband, except with her consent. It also entitles the wife to alienate and pledge shares and to invest money in savings accounts as a depositor in banks. Subsequently, in 1966, there was further amendments designed also to extend the rights of a woman married in community of property to deal with properties which came to her either through her efforts, through work or through succession. The amendments introduced in 1966 allow the wife to withdraw any deposit standing in her name in the Post Office Savings Bank. Because the law which was passed in 1953, whilst it allowed her to deposit, did not provide for her to make withdrawals, this was necessary. There was therefore this extension of rights. What the Bill, which is before the House, proposes to do is to extend these rights somewhat further so as to allow a wife to use her own moneys, and not the funds of the joint estate, to enter into purchase agreements and to invest in securities. For the purposes of this Bill the term “security” is defined as securities under the Securities’ Transfer Act, No. 69 of 1965, which briefly means stocks and shares. I want to point out, particularly in view of the allegation made by the hon. member for Waterkloof, that if the proposed amendment were passed, it would not affect the community estate. Although the wife would have the right to enter into purchase agreements, provided she does so with her own moneys, and to invest in securities, those moneys and investments would remain part of the joint estate. On the death of either, and particularly on the death of the wife, the husband would become entitled to half those funds in the same way as he would be in terms of the law as it exists today. I suggest therefore that the proposed amendment is a logical and necessary extension of the law as it was passed by this Government in 1953 and extended in 1966. I would, therefore, be interested to hear from hon. members opposite, if they continue to oppose this principle, precisely why they do so since they were the ones responsible for originally introducing the principle of which this is merely a small extension.

Your own Government refused this in 1944.

The second issue which is being introduced by this Bill relates to joint custody and guardianship. The hon. member for Wynberg spent some time dealing with this aspect of the matter and dealing with the legal principles relating to guardianship and custody. I do not propose to go into this matter in any detail. What the Bill proposes to do, is to give to the parents equal rights to guardianship and custody of the minor child. This provision in the Bill was referred to the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope. They in turn referred it to a committee to consider and report. This is what they have to say:

They then elaborate on this point. I may say that I agree with this second proposition. I think it is undesirable that if there is no divorce pending and the parties are still living together that differences of opinion or disputes between them as to the children, should be aired in the courts at that stage. But it was never the intention, and I understand from the hon. member for Wynberg, that the amendments should go as far as this. They were intended to relate to the situation once the marriage broke up for some reason or another. I therefore wish to make it clear that at the Committee Stage of this Bill, we shall move an amendment to restrict the provisions to make the position quite clear in this regard. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, it is suggested to me that perhaps the Bill may not reach the Committee Stage. I am certain that the hon. the Minister will give the Bill his blessing, that he will in fact be eager to pilot it through the other stages.

Reverting to clause 2, I want to say that the Law Society in the comments which they have made went on to make clear what their real objection is. This is what they said:

The question I want to ask hon. members on both sides of the House who oppose this Bill, is this: Do they accept the principle which has been enunciated by our courts and has been supported throughout the years, namely that in regard to guardianship and custody the rights of one or other parent are immaterial? What is material is the best interests of the children. I suggest that they must accept this. Even the hon. member for Waterkloof accepts this. We are at last at eye level on one point; so we must be making a little progress. The hon. member for Waterkloof tells me that he accepts the fact that the interests of the children are paramount. If he accepts this, surely he must also accept an extension of the present position, which ensures greater protection for the children. This is the effect of this amendment. It is merely to ensure greater protection to the children by giving more discretion to the courts in dealing with matters of custody and guardianship.

At this stage I think I must change the course of the debate a little because it is perfectly clear that many hon. members are concerned that the effects of the proposed amendments may be far-reaching and more extensive than they would like to support. Whilst I am of the opinion that the proposed amendments are reasonable, I can see that there may be room for argument and some differences of opinion. I therefore propose to move the following amendment:

I want to deal briefly with this amendment of mine. First of all, I think it is perfectly clear that there is room for improvement in our laws of marriage in this country. All social workers who are concerned with this problem and who deal with it from day to day, and legal practitioners who deal with these matters in the courts from day to day, know that there is room for considerable improvement. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he ought to give serious consideration to the amendment I have moved. It is not satisfactory to refer this to the Law Revision Committee. That committee is comprised mainly of judges and officials of the Department. They are perfectly competent to deal with a matter which is one purely of law. This is not a matter purely of law. It is a matter which has far-reaching social consequences and it is time that all persons who are interested in these matters should have the opportunity of giving evidence and expressing their points of view, and this they cannot do if this matter is referred to the Law Revision Committee. It is not only the women of the country who are concerned with some of these changes. The Stock Exchange would like to see changes, because they have to go to a lot of unnecessary trouble getting hold of antenuptial contracts whenever a woman for the first time wishes to buy or sell shares, and the same applies to banks, building societies, etc. All these bodies want to see certain changes. Others also may wish to express their points of view. I suggest that it is time that the general public have this opportunity to express themselves on a matter which is of great importance to the whole structure of the family in South Africa.

I first want to dispose of the latest proposal made by the hon. member for Musgrave, namely that the entire matter be referred to a select committee. I disagree with that, and I disagree with the Bill as well. As far as the select committee is concerned, in principle this matter has already been investigated by a commission of inquiry, i.e. the commission which tabled its report in 1949. The same aspects as are now being debated, the disabilities of women, were submitted to a law revision committee in 1964 and were rejected.

Fifteen years ago.

The principle remains exactly the same. Thereafter the matter was submitted to the Bar Council and also to all the law societies. Last week it was debated in principle in the Other Place and rejected there.

Then I want to point out that it is in fact a juridical matter and not one on which it is necessary to call for evidence. It is a purely legal matter. It is a matter which can be investigated by the Government’s legal advisers, and if there is any merit in the case, amendments can be made to the Act of 1953.

I do, however, want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Wynberg for introducing this Bill, because it does afford us an opportunity in this House to reflect on various important aspects of the position of women in our society. Let me emphasize at once that as far as this side of the House is concerned, there is no doubt that we hold the status and the position of women in very high esteem in our country and in our society. To those of us on this side of the House who have a national, Christian outlook on life, the wife in South Africa is the one round whom the whole family centres. She is the mother of the nation. She is the one to whom the Almightly has allotted the task of giving life, and for that we respect her and would like to afford her the status and the rightful place in our society which she deserves. She has also entered the business world and has pulled her weight in every respect, and in every facet of our national life. I want to take this opportunity to thank those women of our people for the splendid contribution which they have made. We regard the South African woman as the crowning glory of our Republic and we want to retain her as such.

Now, it is said that we have a very high divorce rate in South Africa, and it is true. Our divorce rate is approximately 10 per cent, but if we accept that another 10 per cent of our family life is in the process of crumbling, then it still only comes to 20 per cent, and then we may safely assume that at least 80 per cent of our married people are living together quite happily, and under the present system at that, which is being criticized so severely by the hon. member for Wynberg. Let me just tell her this about the marital power. The marital power is not so much an exercising of power; it forms part of a marriage partnership. If people enter into marriage without any property, it is much better for them to be married in community of property. You all know the facts of the case of Edelstein vs. Edelstein, where the persons were married out of community of property. For many years the wife toiled in the kitchen, and after about 30 years, after the man had made a fortune from his business, he fell in love with a typist and left almost all his money to her in his will. If they had been married in community of property, with the marital power and all, that wife would have received at least half of that estate, which she had in fact earned in the kitchen of her home. This is one of the fine aspects of this system, which has come to us through Roman-Dutch law. There are many things in this system which have particularly attractive facets, and we must not simply adopt the attitude which was adopted by the hon. member for Wynberg, i.e. all husbands are bad and ought not even to poke their noses into the affairs of wives. Surely that is not the case.

My objections to this Bill are based on two grounds. There is an undertone of cynicism throughout this Bill, and I will prove this. Secondly, there is a tremendous measure of duplication of other laws which already set out the existing position, and also as regards our common law position. Let us just look at clause 1 (2) and (3) of her Bill. In clause 1 the hon. member says that a wife must have the right to be able to purchase certain articles with money which she has obtained from any source whatever, for example, money which she has earned or has obtained by way of a gift. She must be able to use that money for her own purposes. Here the cynicism enters into the matter, because that transaction must not be revealed to her husband; it must be a secret transaction. In fact, the hon. member for Wynberg feels so strongly about it that she even says that if anyone tells the husband that the wife entered into such a transaction, a fine not exceeding R100 must be imposed upon him. If that is not cynical, then I really do not know. It undermines our whole marriage system. Can one really imagine what would happen if such a transaction took place, and this secrecy was also in evidence? It must surely prove to be destructive of the relationship between the husband and the wife when it comes to light.

But he may do what he likes, and she need not know about it.

Then I just want to dispose of the other clauses very briefly. My time is very limited and I do not want to take up the time of my colleagues. I want to refer to clause 3. The existing Act provides that a wife may in certain circumstances go to court and ask to be granted sole guardianship. These circumstances are set out in the Act: (a) where there is an application for divorce or (b) where there is an application for judicial separation, or where the parties are already divorced, or where they are living apart. Now the hon. member asks in (c) that she may also go to court on the application of either parent in the event of a dispute between the parents of a minor on any matter affecting such minor. Now I must take it that she means here that if, while the parties are still living together, a dispute arises between them concerning a minor, through certain consent or refusal or withholding of consent to a minor, they should then be able to go to court and ask that the guardianship be granted to her. Can the hon. member imagine what would happen under those circumstances? It would mean that that marriage would be broken down completely. It is a fact that small disputes occur in every marriage, but those disputes are settled, and the moment those disputes are of a serious nature they will fall under paragraph (b); in other words, the point is this: What she is proposing here is unnecessary, because if she should embody it in an Act, the marriage would in fact begin to break up, and the existing Act already grants her sufficient rights to obtain guardianship of her child.

The hon. member also asks that the mother should have the right to give a child away for adoption on her own. These aspects are fully covered by our Children’s Act. I may just refer her to section 60 of the Children’s Act, which permits exactly what she is asking for in this bill, and to section 71 (2) (b) (iv) of the Children’s Act, which permits her exactly what she is asking for here. If I had the time, I could have taken her through the Bill line for line to prove that there is an existing law for the parents either in the Children’s Act or in terms of our common law or in our rules of court. She must just look at court rule No. 43, which permits precisely what she is asking for in subsection (8). One can go through the entire Bill in this way, and in these circumstances this Bill is surely not necessary.

I was pleased to hear the hon. member for Prinshof start off with an accolade to the women of South Africa, and I am very glad he did that because later on I shall be making many of the same complimentary remarks that he did, but it was nice to have this coming from the male side of the House. I want to say at once that I want to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave that this Bill be referred to a select committee before second reading. There is a great deal—in fact almost all of it—in this Bill with which I wholeheartedly agree. I believe there are, however, improvements which could be introduced at a select commitee. I think there is some ambiguity in clauses 1 and 2, and I think there are some omissions which should be inserted if the position of women in South Africa is to be made well-nigh perfect as far as the removal of disabilities is concerned. I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting on major grounds, the hon. member for Wynberg this afternoon. I am particularly pleased because it so happens that 15 years ago in this House, 15 long and weary years, I made my maiden speech on the Matrimonial Affairs Amendment Bill, the Bill introduced by the Government after many years of hard struggle by the then hon. member for Jeppes, Mrs. Bertha Solomon to remove the major disabilities suffered by South African married women. There was a long history attached to the introduction of that Bill and I want to pay tribute to the women who have made it so much easier for women of my generation to enjoy certain privileges and I hope, if the hon. member for Wynberg will accept the amendment, that further privileges will ensue.

Sir, I wish to pay tribute to the women who, long before women got the franchise in South Africa, battled hard for that particular right, and to the women who from 1930 onwards when we did get the franchise, began a concerted campaign to remove the disabilities of married women in particular in South Africa. I wish to pay tribute also to organizations such as the National Council for Women, Die Vrouefederasie and other organizations which spent many hours in attempting to have resolutions brought to this House and to get the law changed. It was World War II that really gave impetus to the movement for the emancipation of women in this country, because through the contribution that women made to the war effort in South Africa and also, I might add, through the numerous difficulties that arose because men were up north and women were not in a position legally to take decisions, it became obvious that certain changes were utterly essential in the law affecting women in South Africa. And thus we had the appointment of commissions; we had the work of Mrs. Spilhaus, who through the National Council of Women, attempted to get commissions appointed, and finally we had the Legal Disabilities of Women Commission under Mr. Twentyman-Jones appointed in 1944 or 1945, the recommendations of which were finally translated to some extent into law in 1953 after the Bill of the then member for Jeppes. Mrs. Solomon, was taken over by the Government and introduced.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof has made a great deal of fuss and bother about what he considers to be a cynical inclusion in this Bill introduced by the hon. member for Wynberg to-day—subsection (2) of section 4, in clause 1 in terms of which certain investments or certain financial dealings which the wife can undertake shall not be disclosed to the husband. He considers this to be a very cynical thing indeed. Well, the hon. member is ignorant of the law.

I know about the other provision.

If the hon. member did know it, he did not say so, and I am going to say so now. Sir, in 1966 just as cynical an amendment was introduced, to the Matrimonial Affairs Act, an amendment which enabled the wife to put money into a building society and so on. The husband could not have such information disclosed to him except with his wife’s written consent. That is all that this clause is asking for as well. It provides that save with the wife’s written consent particulars concerning various purchase agreements into which the wife will now be entitled to enter, shall not be disclosed to the husband. There is nothing cynical about it. It is being done for a very good reason. The husband’s creditors are still entitled to claim against certain of the wife’s possessions. Even though the amending Bill of 1966 helped to some extent, it did not do away with some of the disabilities that still remained after the 1953 Act. I want to say at once that the 1953 Act was an enormous improvement as far as married women were concerned. They were given certain additional rights, and they were given a certain amount of protection. They were protected in regard to their earnings and in regard to any inheritance received by them after their marriage when they were married in community of property. Such possessions were protected from the husband. He could not alienate or dispose of her earnings or of her inheritances in any way, but there were certain shortcomings with which I shall deal in a moment. Equally under the 1953 Act, although the woman’s rights of guardianship were considerably extended, there were certain shortcomings in that Act. Under the 1953 Act, as we know, in the case of a divorce, it was left to the court not only to grant custody to the woman but, in the best interests of the child, to decide whether or not the sole guardianship of the child should go to the divorced wife. Of course, in the case of a marriage which still obtains this is not the case and the guardianship remains with the husband, except that in the case of permission to a minor child to marry, there are equal rights of guardianship. For the rest the husband has the sole right to make a decision as far as the minor child is concerned. The hon. member for Prinshof and I think the hon. member for Waterkloof were both rather concerned that this sole right of guardianship should remain, but I would like to point out to them that 15 years ago the Twentyman-Jones commission actually recommended joint guardianship by husband and wife, and the commission said that it was only in the case of a dispute where there was a difference of opinion between the parents, that a judge in chambers should have the right to make the decision. This is not really such a new proposal therefore, and indeed it was the intention of the commission that such a provision should be inscribed in the 1953 Act but it was thrown out. The hon. member for Wynberg is now attempting to have that re-instituted and I support her 100 per cent in that regard.

As far as the property clause is concerned, the 1953 Act gave the woman certain additional rights to dispose of her earnings and to invest her savings in a building society and to open a banking account without being assisted by her husband. At the same time it gave her certain protection in that the husband could not alienate those savings or take her money out of the building society or realise an insurance policy which she had taken out for the education of her children. That was a great improvement. But, strangely enough, when a woman withdraws her savings out of a building society or out of a bank, she does not today enjoy the right to do what she likes with that money. She may not buy property without the husband’s written consent and she may not buy shares. Hence all this difficulty about the production of A.N.C. certificates by women who are married under A.N.C. in order to prove their right to act individually and without the husband’s consent. It seems to me that this is an anomaly. It is an anachronism because, after all, what is to prevent a woman married in community of property from buying shares and not taking transfer thereof? There is nothing to stop her. She can withdraw her savings and buy shares. Provided she has paid for them, she can take possession of those shares. There is nothing mandatory in our law to make it essential for her to take transfer of those shares. It is true that she has to pay a penalty after a year because the certificate is valid only for a year if ownership is changed. Thereafter she has to pay penalties but they are very low. I think they are ¼ per cent per R100, so it is not a very great penalty. She does not even have to forego the beneficial results of such share dealings because she simply has to present the owner with proof that she has bought these shares and then she can claim the dividend from that person. I do not see therefore why we maintain this ridiculous restriction on women as far as their own money is concerned and why we do not allow them to withdraw that money and use it as they see fit.

The hon. member for Waterkloof need not be nervous about the question of women using the husband’s share. That is not intended in this Bill. All that is contemplated in clause 1 of the Bill is to allow her to do what she likes with what she herself has acquired either by inheritance or gift or by way of earnings. There is no question of the woman taking over the husband’s half of the joint estate. I hope that that explanation will set the hon. member’s fears at rest. Sir, the whole of this system presupposes either that a women is dishonest and that she is going to try to use money which does not rightly belong to her or that she is a fool and I must, of course, emphatically deny either of those suppositions. There is no reason at all to imagine that a women is any more dishonest than a man. Indeed it was found necessary to introduce the 1953 Act simply because husbands in many cases had squandered their wive’s earnings, had demanded their wive’s wages at factory doors, and generally speaking taken dishonest advantage of their position. That is why the 1953 Act was passed. But there is absolutely no reason to suppose that it is necessary to protect men against the dishonesty of their wives, nor is it necessary to protect women against their own foolishness. And here I return to the opening words of the hon. member for Prinshof, with which I heartily agree, and that is that women have shown themselves absolutely capable in every facet of life of competing, fair and square, in what is euphemistically known as a man’s world. We have no difficulty in holding our own, if I may say so. In public life, women city councillors, women M.P.C.’s and, if I may in modesty says so, women M.P.’s have shown themselves more than able to hold their own against men in this House. They certainly work a good deal harder and they very often talk a great deal more sense, so we require no protection in that regard.

They talk a great deal more anyway.

Yes, they talk more because they very often have a lot more to say that is intelligent. Finally, Sir, they have taken their part in the professional and business life of South Africa, and they have made a very material contribution indeed to the national income of this country. The very fact that only the other day the hon. the Minister of Finance told me that the net gain to the national exchequer was some R34 million per annum as a result of the joint taxation of husband and wife, demonstrates how very materially indeed South African women have played their part in the development of this country. For all those reasons, Sir, I wish to record my support of this Bill in principle, although as I say, I think it should go to a select committee. The one main omission that I see in this Bill is that it does not change the law as regards donations. I do think that it would be very important to insert in any new Bill which a select committee might return to this House, a clause enabling husbands legally to make donations to their wives. Again this was recommended by the Twentyman-Jones commission. It was actually provided for in the 1953 Bill but this provision was dropped in the Committee Stage because there were objections that this might lead to fraud and might penalize the husband’s creditors.

Sir, I would like to end with a quotation, also from Mr. Hahlo’s book, where he pointed out that the rule against donations was designed in Roman-Dutch Law not for the protection of creditors but to keep mercenary motives out of married life and, as he put it, to prevent connubial affections from becoming the subject matter of bargaining and I suppose, to protect the loving male, the weaker spouse, against any from of pressure being put upon him by his wife to give her gifts in order to secure domestic felicity. Sir, I am quite sure that in this day and age this is no longer necessary. Women receive gifts and donations from their husbands not in order that they may maintain domestic felicity, but in the spirit in which such gifts are made. It is obviously an anachronism that a married man may give another woman a donation or a gift which is legal—and I have no doubt that many married men do just that—but a married man may not, as a token of his love and affection, give his wife a donation which is recognized in law.

There is an old English proverb which says, “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, but when I listened to the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Houghton to-day, it seemed to me that they no longer believed that adage. I just want to say to them that my wife still firmly believes it, and leaves me in no doubt that she does.

In the time in which we are living to-day wives are to an ever-increasing extent compelled to leave their housework and perform office duties. These days the wife takes off her apron to enter the professions, and as a result of her entry into the business world we to-day have the cry throughout the country for the further emancipation of women. This is understandable, because it is a result of the change which the activities of women have undergone. Because our country is always seeking the best for all groups and persons, we cannot adopt a cold and unsympathetic attitude towards proposed measures aimed at improving the circumstances of women. But endorsement and support of any measures contemplated in this connection are subject to two conditions. The first condition is that there must in fact be a real and serious deficiency which can only be remedied by the steps envisaged. The second requirement is that the steps envisaged will not be destructive of the fundamental principles on which our legal, social and family relationships are based. This, then, is also the background against which I shall approach and judge the Bill now before the House.

I cannot and may not pour cold water on the effort made by the hon. member for Wynberg, nor can I summarily reject it. But if I test the measure against the background of the conditions which I have mentioned, I unfortunately cannot support it as it now stands. I cannot support it because, in the first place, no necessity exists for everything which is requested in the legislation. In the second place, the provisions of the Bill are drastically in conflict with and deviate from the accepted principles upon which our administration of justice is based, as far as contractual, marital and family matters are concerned.

In saying this, I do not want to suggest that there are not a few provisions that justify further attention and consideration. Certain provisions will probably facilitate and simplify the fulfilment and execution of certain legal requirements to the benefit of all parties concerned. But in my opinion it is not necessary to pass such a drastic measure to ensure this relief. Also, I feel that we are shooting a sparrow with an elephant gun here. But because the vast majority of the provisions of this measure will, in my estimation, only confuse matters more, and will create far more problems than they will solve, I cannot support it.

The hon. member for Wynberg had a good deal to say about the disadvantages of a marriage in community of property. But to those who want to make out that such a marriage only holds disadvantages for the wife, I say that they are quite wrong. As the hon. member for Prinshof indicated, thousands upon thousands of women in our country are benefited by this form of marriage. Our legislation provides for the protection of the assets and income of the married woman in that she can conclude an antenuptial contract. The wife has a free choice, and she and the husband can decide together what conditions they want to have set down in writing. The hon. member for Houghton said that the women of to-day are perfectly capable of arranging their own affairs, and accordingly they are probably capable of deciding what kind of marriage they want to conclude, and on what conditions they wish to do so.

Mr. Speaker, to me this Bill represents a tremendous interference with existing common law principles, an interference which cuts, and may in the future cut, far deeper than may be contemplated in any clause of the measure to-day. It also interferes drastically with the existing order of our society, an order which has been formed through the centuries and has been shaped over hundreds of years.

What I find the most important is the fact that this measure conflicts with the marital structure, with the relationship between husband and wife as set out in the marriage formulary. This view of marriage is not a manmade one. The fundamental point of departure is that the Creator created man and woman to be different, to fulfil different roles in married life. Therefore I feel that we must have very sound reasons before we tamper with this institution.

Previous hon. speakers have already referred to the complications and the implications of this Bill. In the short time at my disposal, I should also like to refer to a few points.

Although it is not specifically mentioned in the measure, the proposed section 4 (1), which is introduced by clause 1 of the Bill, deals exclusively with the legal personality and legal ability of the wife. It places the legal ability of the wife much higher than that of the husband. In this connection I refer to the proposed new section 4 (2), which deals with the confidentiality of the wife’s investments. The proposed subsection (3) deals with the penalty which the courts may impose. However, I want to say to the hon. member for Wynberg that the protection afforded by the confidentiality of the investment serves no purpose. It affords no protection to the wife because that information will have to be furnished in the income-tax forms and the husband will have to have that information. The wife will therefore have no protection in that respect. The provision is therefore worthless. Another objection which I have to this proposed section 4, is that it affords the husband and wife an opportunity of colluding. For example, if a husband has many creditors, he can donate his money to his wife and she can put it away without anyone having to disclose where it is or where it is invested. The creditor who wants to take action will then be unable to determine where the assets are, and in that way his claim will be frustrated. The world will be a much more difficult place if we have a marriage in community of property, one out of community of property, and yet another marriage regime the nature of which I cannot put a name to. Such a sui generis marriage will make dealings with third parties much more difficult and can only promote irregularities.

I now come to clause 2, which deals with guardianship. The present position in our legal system is that the father is the primary guardian. I want to admit that problems are sometimes experienced in this connection. But I simply cannot see how the granting of equal rights to the parents will solve the problems. Adequate provision exists in terms of the Children’s Act to solve problems of this nature in court. Besides, the court, as hon. members probably know, is the upper guardian of all minors, and a mother has the right to approach the court and call in its assistance if the life, health or general wellbeing of the child is threatened. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in this respect was very clearly set out in the case of Calitz vs. Calitz, in which Mr. Justice Tindall said—

I am convinced that this measure ought not to be accepted. It is my considered opinion that marriage should not be too normatively determined and regimented by way of legislation. For all these reasons I cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise really so as to give the hon. the Minister of Justice the opportunity of traditionally following someone on this side of the House. I, however, do wish to make certain animadversions on this Bill before the House.

I think it is fair to say that everyone who has spoken so far has expressed the desire that any disabilities women still suffer from should, if possible, be removed in as much as they are not consistent with modem times. To that extent I feel our Roman-Dutch Law, about which much has been said, must have grafted onto it the necessities of our time, and whether the remedies come from the English law or from the Syrian law, does not I think really make much difference.

Clause 1 of this Bill is perhaps the most important one. I do not like parts of it. I find it rather distressing that if my wife, if this measure were passed in its present form, were to buy a radio wholesale and someone were to tell me he had in fact given her 30 per cent discount, that man would then be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of R100 or six months’ imprisonment. I find that provision a little medieaval, to put it mildly.

I do not like clause 2 at all. The idea of joint guardianship in marriage is something which in practice could not possibly work.

It works in England.

The hon. member for Houghton supports this and mentions that it works in England. She says the Twentyman-Jones Commission suggested it and this House rejected it. I say very wisely. Imagine the situation that would arise if, for example, I wanted to send my son to school A and my wife wanted to send him to school B. We would have to go to court to have the issue decided as to which school the child has to go to. If I want to give my son a jolly good hiding, which frequently I do, and my wife disagrees, I may well have to approach a judge in chambers to get his decision.

Why should you men want to make all the decisions?

Well, someone has to make the decisions.

Not necessarily you.

Yes, necessarily me. Let us get this right. As far as I am concerned, I am the man who should make those decisions. Someone has to, and, let us face it, the women are used to the fact that we men do make the decisions.

Quite apart from that, I think one must bear in mind that any situation which makes spouses go to court must be avoided. I am sure that any hon. member in this House who practises law will agree with me that whenever there is a matrimonial dispute, as long as you can keep the parties out of court, you still have a chance of settling the matter. But once they get into court and they join issue and make their case, the one against the other, and say all sorts of things they do not really mean and regret later, the chances of getting them together again afterwards are very slim.

The principle of women’s rights is something which I am sure we all feel should be looked at to see what can be done.

And put away.

No. They should be brought into line. Proper attention should be given thereto. That is why I support the amendment of the hon. member for Musgrave that this Bill should go to a Select Committee of this House, and not, as the hon. member suggested the Minister might say, to the Law Revision Committee.

This is particularly the place where a cause can properly be pursued. The Law Revision Committee is a committee which is not following a cause but has problems referred to it. It looks at them in the cold light of the law as it sees it. The hon. member for Wynberg has come here to-day with a cause and this House, this great institution of Parliament, is equipped to deal with causes. That is its function and its purpose. It is the right of a private member who has a cause to come here and have this House decide through a Select Committee how that cause could properly be put on the Statute Book. That is our function; we are the legislators, no matter what the Law Revision Committee may recommend. For instance, what the Twentyman-Jones Committee recommended, was rejected in the end by this House. Our machinery is particularly adapted and suitable for that, much more suitable, I do submit, than a general discussion on all the rights of women. The hon. member for Wynberg has come with one and I think we should look at it and deal with it in our own way through our own special procedure.

I particularly would like that to happen because there is another disability under which some women suffer for which there is no remedy at all. Only legislation can provide the remedy.

In Durban over the last two years I have come across three cases of women who married American sailors who later left on their ships and their wives, who remained behind in Durban, have not seen them since. They have been unable to trace them. And in their situation, of course, there is nothing that can be done. They cannot even get divorced. They cannot get married again. They have been deserted and our courts do not have jurisdiction. And there are a growing number of these cases. That is the sort of thing a Select Committee could look into and, if this Bill were referred before Second Reading, it could bring up the necessary legislation. It is a matter of great importance that these persons should have some sort of remedy. There are remedies in certain cases. The other remedy is that ypu go to court and commit perjury by saying: “Yes, of course, when I married him he said he was going to buy this house and made negotiations to buy the house.” If the judge believes that he would grant her a divorce. But in order to get it, in most cases one has to commit perjury. These are a number of distressed women who I think should also be catered for by this Select Committee. If this Bill were referred to a Select Committee, it could deal with that aspect. My time has now expired, and as I have indicated, I rose mainly to give the hon. the Minister an opportunity to reply.

Mr. Speaker right at the outset I want to congratulate the hon. member for Wynberg on her attempt to get something done for her own sex. She endeavoured in the first place to obtain greater legal capacity in certain cases and in the second place to obtain equal guardianship of children in cases where the parents are still living together. Having congratulated her on that—and I also want to congratulate her on the large audience she has drawn for herself in the gallery this afternoon—I can go no further. I honestly cannot congratulate her on the two main provisions of this measure. The hon. member gave me the assurance that this measure had been referred to a lawyer, a senior lawyer. But when I look at section 1, I think the lawyer who placed this provision there did not give very careful consideration to all the consequences involved. I shall refer to a few of the provisions in passing. In the first place the proposed section 4 (1) provides that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any law or the common law contained, a married woman, whether subject to the marital power or not, may do certain things. She may for instance enter into purchase agreements and so forth. Now I cannot follow, if the wife is not subject to the marital power of the husband—that is to say, if the marital power is excluded—what prevents her from entering into purchase agreements. I just cannot follow this. What is the necessity of that? It is just the marital power which prevents the wife. Consequently, where the marital power is excluded, there is nothing to stand in her way. But I go further. She may enter into purchase agreements, and I think also purchase agreements in respect of fixed property if this is the intention. But if we look at the wording of the proposed section 4 (1) (b), we find that the power granted to execute all the documents, etc., applies only to section 1 (b). It does not apply to section 1 (a). As regards purchase agreements the position is that the agreement is concluded when the price and the transaction have been agreed upon. Then the purchase agreement is final and reciprocal rights come into being—the right to claim the article and the right to claim the purchase price. Now it is provided that the married woman may do these things “from her earnings, inheritances, or gifts or from any other source whatsoever …. Now I ask the hon. member what precisely “from any other source whatsoever” means. Does it mean inter alia that she may do these things with moneys her husband has entrusted to her to buy household necessities with? Does it mean the moneys he has entrusted to her to pay the children’s hostel fees? I just mention these things to prove that the provision is very ill-considered. It is extremely ill-considered. It is very clear in the Afrikaans version in particular that the wording of the proposed subsection 1 (b) should only have gone as far as the word “sekuriteite” in line 16, and that all the other qualifications should have been made applicable to subsection 1 (a) as well as 1 (b). It is a fact that once the purchase agreement has been entered into or after the transaction has been concluded, the property is included in the joint estate. Seeing that it is included in the joint estate, one must infer from clause 1 that the joint estate will also be responsible for the agreements entered into in this way. If an agreement is entered into by a wife and she has agreed on the price and the transaction, she is bound in terms of this section. Suppose she cannot fulfil the agreement she has entered into. She cannot fulfil it out of her own earnings or out of inheritances. Then she places the joint estate in jeopardy. In other words, now we have two people riding on one horse. The hon. member wants those two people to sit next to each other on the horse. What I am saying now, applies to clause 2 as well. It is a known fact that when two people ride on one horse, one of necessity has to sit in front and the other behind. Time will not permit me to go into all the questions that arise. I shall mention only a few of them. There is the question of dealing with securities. Various members pointed out that these dealings have to take place in secret. The husband must not be aware of them. From the nature of the case it will be possible for the joint estate to be held responsible for the purchase agreements and transactions entered into by the wife. The hon. member specifically mentions the question of securities and shares. And if there is anything in respect of which it is dangerous to enter into purchase agreements and to deal in—to buy and sell—it is in fact shares.

But she can do that anyway.

I am referring to the case where the wife was married in community of property. Then she is not legally capable of doing this. In such a marriage her position is so much weaker. She is not legally capable of doing this and she cannot bind the joint estate. In addition I want to ask this: When purchase agreements are entered into, who will be responsible for determining whether the transactions are entered into out of the wife’s own earnings or inheritances and so forth. Is this responsibility going to rest on the seller? Will the seller have to determine every time where the lady obtained the money to fulfil the purchase agreement with?

Who does that in the case of a man?

The hon. member must remember that she made a point of it that for a lady who is married out of community of property and who has reserved to herself the marital right, it is infra dig. to produce her antenuptial contract every time. Here she is being placed in the position where the dealer will say to her: “You must prove to me that this money with which you are entering into a transaction with me, is derived from an inheritance, your own earnings, or the other source mentioned.” The trouble with women is that they like the advantages of community of property, but not its disadvantages. That is the trouble. I readily concede that women have made economic progress in our world. Women have a share in the economy of our country and form an important part of it. But my contention is that basically a marriage in community of property is to the advantage of the woman. It is only in exceptional cases that she is penalized as a result of the fact that she married a bad husband in community of property and that she may have to look after the family. This happens in a few cases. My experience is that—and I have been an attorney for a long time—where the woman possesses something and enters into a marriage, her father will see to it that an antenuptial contract is entered into. My experience is that where no antenuptial contract is entered into, it is the ordinary couple that starts off nothing, the couple that starts off with love alone. This is the right place to start as a basis for marriage. This matter also encompasses the question of equal guardianship. The fact of the matter is that in the same household one cannot have two persons with an equal say. It simply does not work. As I said a moment ago, if two people want to ride on one horse, one has to sit behind and one in front. Great relief has been introduced in this respect. Certain hon. members have pointed out that under the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, certain serious anomalies were eliminated. My contention is that the ladies have the solution in their own hands. They may enter into an antenuptial contract and marry out of community of property. They may also exclude the husband’s marital right if they want to enter into the transactions pleaded for by the hon. members. The questions that arose in connection with certain flaws in our law were properly dealt with in the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953. I need not go into the various provisions of that Act now, because the hon. member knows it as well as I do. My contention is that every matter she wants to provide for here, has already been provided for.

I now want to deal with the question of equal guardianship. At present we have provisions in our law which provide for sole guardianship to be granted to either the one or the other parent when a divorce or a judical separation takes place or when the parents are living apart. The position simply is that as long as a marriage is a happy one, as we all hope and want a marriage to be, it does not really matter who has the major say. As a rule it is always the mother who has this say. However, when matters take a turn for the worse and the parents start fighting over their children, to the extent that they have to go to court, then that marriage is already on the rocks. I really cannot see why provision has to be made for equal guardianship. It is true that the court gives preference to the father in certain respects and that the care of the children is left to the mother. But why it must be specifically provided now that they must have equal rights of guardianship is beyond me. My contention is that once a couple has reached this stage, the marriage is already on the rocks. And then we have sufficient provisions in our law to deal with the matter.

I just want to refer to another aspect of the matter. The Children’s Act has been mentioned here and I just want to refer to one provision of the Children’s Act. Mention has been made of a cheap procedure. I am now going to mention a very cheap procedure, and that is that where a children’s court is satisfied that a minor should live with his mother and away from his father because the father has deserted or regularly ill-treated the child or its mother or because he has refused to maintain anyone of them, or that the child must live with his father, then the court may deprive the guilty parent of the right to exercise any parental powers over the minor concerned and the court may grant the sole right to exercise those powers to the other parent. This is the type of case particularly complained about by the hon. member for Wynberg. She said that she regularly receives such complaints from her constituency. Provision exists for cases where the father has left and cannot be traced. Sufficient provision for that has been made under the Children’s Act.

I just want to refer again to the matter of equal guardianship. It has been said here that the Twentyman-Jones Commission of 1948 recommended equal guardianship. This is not correct. My information differs from this. My information is that a great deal of evidence was submitted by women’s organizations that equal guardianship would have to be introduced. The evidence of those organizations was to this effect. My information is that the Commission was only in favour of joint guardianship. That is how the law stands at present. Because the Commission was in favour of joint guardianship, those provisions were included in the Matrimonial Affairs Act, 1953, but as far as I know it is not correct that it was done on a recommendation of the Commission. The Department of Justice again received representations on the matter of equal guardianship in 1963, and the matter was investigated by the Department in the same year. In 1964 it was referred to the Law Revision Committee, the Bench, the Bar, and the Side Bar, and they were all overwhelmingly opposed to equal guardianship. If these bodies are against equal guardianship, I think it is risky to propose a measure of such a nature and then to expect the Government to take it further.

All male lawyers.

The hon. member says “all male lawyers”; it is extraordinary that, although the ladies are as able as was said here, they are not members of these bodies too.

I want to refer to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Musgrave. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet that if there is a deficiency in our law, we are now taking steps to set up machinery which is completely out of proportion to what we really want to achieve. I said in the Other Place that I was prepared, in view of recent court decisions, to refer the matter of the two exceptions to the Law Revision Committee. They can then be properly considered from a legal point of view, and the necessary recommendations can then be made.

Do you think they will give you a report before four years?

Yes, I have already referred to that. An hon. member asked who the members of the Law Revision Committee were. The members include the Chief Justice, judges of appeal, professors and representatives of the Side Bar and the Bar, to which the hon. member belongs. This body is properly constituted and is in a better position to make legal proposals than the hon. member for Wynberg is.

My point is, do you think they will reach agreement?

Yes it is possible. I cannot say at the moment, however, when they will submit the report. I fear that what we have heard here this afternoon, has in my opinion not yet been properly formulated. We may just as well forget about the matter of equal guardianship. While the marriage lasts, it is impossible for both parents to have an equal say over the children. In the case of a normal marriage, while everything is still going well, the wife has the say. But when the parents are quarrelling to the extent that they go to court, the time for a divorce has come. The existing laws then prescribe to which parent the children are to be given.

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