I just want to inform the House what the business for next week will be. Apart from the fact that the Minister of Finance will deliver his speech on the Part Appropriation on Monday afternoon, we shall continue with the Order Paper as it stands now. I have agreed to it that after the speech by the Minister of Finance the debate will be adjourned until Wednesday. When we meet on Wednesday afternoon, the Part Appropriation debate will be resumed, and it will probably occupy us for the rest of the week.

I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, we have opposed this Bill at all its stages and we shall oppose it once again at the Third Reading.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—87: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Du Plessis, H. R. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—29: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Connan, J. M.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

This is a short Bill which, as hon. members can see, does not contain far-reaching amendments. The amendments contained in the first two clauses merely give effect to the letter and spirit of the provisions of section 20 (3) of the Prisons Act, 1959, which provides that any reference in any law to a “gaol” or to a “prison or gaol” or to a “prison and gaol” must be read as referring to a “prison”.

At first sight it would appear as though clause 3 of the Bill introduces something new as far as the territorial jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts in summary trials is concerned. On the one hand this is the case, but on the other hand the amendment is necessary purely for the purpose of eliminating an existing anomaly between the provisions of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and those of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Section 58 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955 (which provides in what magisterial district a preliminary examination is to be held when an offence is committed on the boundary or boundaries of districts or on any journey) reads as follows—

From this it appears, inter alia, that a magistrate’s court is competent to hold a preliminary examination in respect of an offence committed in the territorial waters of the Republic. However, if we have regard to the provisions of section 90 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944 (which defines the territorial jurisdiction of the court of a district or regional division), we find that in summary trials the territorial jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court is more restrictive than it is in the case of preliminary examinations. By virtue of the provisions of section 90 (2) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act (as quoted in full in clause 3 of the Bill), it appears that a magistrate’s court does not have jurisdiction in summary trials relating to offences committed in that part of the territorial waters of the Republic which is more than two miles away from the coastline, unless the particular vessel on board which the imputed offence was committed, was performing a journey within the distance of two miles of that district or of that regional division. If the vessel concerned did not perform that journey within the distance of two miles of the district, the magistrate’s court does not have summary jurisdiction to try offences. Accordingly the amendments proposed in clause 3 are aimed at extending the summary jurisdiction of magistrates, as far as the territorial waters are concerned, in order that those courts may, just as it is in the case of preliminary examinations, have jurisdiction relating to offences committed in the territorial waters at a distance of more than two miles away from the coastline.

The amendment proposed in clause 4 does in fact not introduce something new as regards the kind of sentences which are imposed by a magistrate’s court and are subject to review by a court of appeal or one of the Judges thereof. The Judge President of the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court pointed out that section 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act did possibly not give effect to the actual intention of the legislator. Section 344 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that whipping may only be imposed by an inferior court in the case of a conviction for robbery or rape, culpable homicide, breaking or entering any premises, a statutory offence for which a whipping may be imposed, and so forth. Such punishment may also be inflicted on a minor in addition to, or in substitution for, any other punishment. In terms of section 345 of that Act the court which convicts a minor way, in lieu of any other punishment and, as well in the case of a first conviction as of any subsequent conviction, sentence such a minor to receive a moderate correction of whipping.

Before 1959 section 344 bis formed part of the Magistrates’ Courts Act as section 92 (3). Whipping imposed in terms of the latter section was reviewable by virtue of the provisions of section 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1959, whereby various amendments relating to Criminal Law were effected, subsequently enacted section 92 (3) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act as section 344 bis of the Criminal Procedure Act. By virtue of the provisions of section 96 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act sentences of whippings imposed in terms of section 344 bis on minors were, strictly speaking, no longer reviewable, as section 96 still exempted from review all forms of corporal punishment relating to minors, imposed in terms of the Criminal Procedure Act. This appears to have been an oversight. It was ascertained that in practice magistrates still continued to refer any sentence of corporal punishment imposed on a minor, other than corporal punishment in terms of section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, to the court of appeal for review. The amendment proposed in clause 4 now restores the legal position in regard to the review-ability of sentences of corporal punishment as far as minors are concerned, to what it was before 1959 and as it is still being applied in practice, by providing explicitly that only corporal punishment imposed on a minor in terms of section 345 of the Criminal Procedure Act, is not subject to review.

Mr. Speaker, I trust that the objectives of this Bill are now clear to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has said everything that can be said in regard to this measure, and it is only necessary for me to say that we support the principle of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members will recall that when the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Bill—now the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act, 1967 (Act No. 78 of 1967), whereby nearly 700 laws that no longer served a useful purpose were repealed—was introduced year before last, I informed this House at the Second Reading of that Bill that the Government had decided that the Pre-Union laws had to be revised and that those statutory provisions which had in the meantime lost their usefulness had to be repealed. At the time I also said that those statutory provisions which still served a useful purpose and could suitably be incorporated with existing legislation, had to be so incorporated and that the rest had to be adapted to present needs and re-enacted. The measure before the House at the moment is merely a result of that decision. In point of fact, several pre-Union statutory provisions, in addition to the nearly 700 repealed by the Pre-Union Statute Law Revision Act alone, have already been repealed or incorporated with existing laws or adapted to present needs and reenacted. One merely has to page through the statutes of the past few years to appreciate what has already been done in this regard. I do not wish to tire you, Sir, with a long list of details, but in passing mention can be made in this regard of the Civil Proceedings Evidence Act, the Arbitration Act, the Admission of Advocates Act, and so forth. Hardly a single session passes without some pre-Union law or other being deleted from the old Statute Books. Only last year there were, as far as could be ascertained, eight pre-Union laws that were repealed, one of which was a proclamation issued by Sir John Cradock and dating back to the year 1813. If hon. members would look at the schedule to this Bill, they would see that in each of the four provinces there is a pre-Union law in regard to disguises. However, those provisions are of a divergent nature and it is necessary, particularly since we are dealing with offences here, to have uniformity in this regard. In the Cape Province, for instance, it is an offence if—to quote the words used in the section in question—“any person [is] found by night, having his face blackened or wearing felt or other slippers, or being dressed or otherwise disguised with a criminal intent”. The Free State provision agrees with this word for word. In Natal it is explicitly provided that it is an offence for a male to be dressed as a female and to be found in circumstances suggesting a probable intention to commit an offence, irrespective of whether the intended offence is known. In the Transvaal the wearing of masks, false beards or other means whereby a disguise is effected in public roads or public places is forbidden. However, disguises at stage productions, a masked ball or similar places to which the public has access, are excluded from these provisions. In that province it is also an offence to disguise one’s face or person with the intention of breaking into any premises or dwelling in order to commit an offence there. The punishments prescribed in terms of these laws also vary considerably.

It will be noticed, therefore, that in the Cape and in the Free State it is an offence if the disguise is effected at night by any person, i.e. male as well as female; in the Transvaal it is prohibited for any person to wear masks, false beards and other means whereby disguises may be effected, with specific exceptions, whereas in Natal it is an offence for a man to dress up as a woman for the purpose of committing an offence. It stands to reason that such divergent differences in regard to one and the same subject are not desirable, and in this Bill uniformity is now being effected.

In terms of the existing provisions the onus rests on the State to prove that the disguise was used with criminal intent, where this is set as a requirement. It will have to be conceded that this is a very difficult—if not an impossible one in most cases—onus of proof which rests on the State. This may also be the reason why there have only been, as far as could be ascertained, very few reported cases in regard to these provisions. That is why the onus of proof is, in terms of clause 1 of this Bill, being placed on the accused, after the State has proved that such person was found in circumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred that he probably had the intention of committing some offence or other, to prove that when he was so found he had no such intention. This is not an unreasonable onus of proof and the accused, who knows better than anybody else why he has effected some disguise or other, ought to find it easy, if his intentions were in fact innocent, to acquit himself of the onus of proof. By virtue of our judicial system he will only be able to acquit himself of the onus of proof on a preponderance of probabilities. In the case of the objective contemplated in this legislation, it is not unreasonable to place on the accused the onus of proof in regard to an evil intention. Nobody would dream of taking steps where on the face of it the intention with the disguise is an innocent one, such as when a group of young men play a few pranks on Guy Fawkes Day or in the course of a concert or a theatrical production. Only disguises under suspicious circumstances can provoke steps.

For the information of our Natal friends we may mention that, although in this respect Natal is different from the other provinces in that it does apparently not have prohibitions relating to females disguising themselves with some criminal intent or other, the Natal provision mentioned in the schedule to the Bill was nevertheless used as an example in that certain principles contained therein are reflected in clause 1 of the Bill. Section 6 (2) (e) of Act No. 10 of 1910 of Natal provides that it is an offence “(In the case of a male person) [to be] found dressed as a woman in circumstances indicating a probable intention of availing himself of such disguise in order to commit a crime, whether such intended crime be known or not”. This is the Natal provision. Hon. members will therefore see that the principle in clause 1 (1) of the present Bill, i.e. that any person found disguised in circumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred that such person probably has the intention of committing some offence or other, has been borrowed from the Natal provision. But the provision “whether such intended crime be known or not” is also being reflected in the Bill, i.e. in clause 1 (2). It will have to be conceded that this provision is essential, otherwise it will be impossible for the State if it has to prove that the accused had the intention of committing a particular offence. By clause 1 (2) the State is therefore being exempted from having to allege or to prove that the accused had such an intention.

The rest of the Bill is self-evident.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has indicated that the real intention of the Bill is to bring about uniformity in the laws relating to the question of disguising oneself in certain circumstances, and of course the Bill does achieve that. I would not say that it is a Bill which consolidates the position in any way, because what is provided for in this Bill is very different and much wider than any of the laws contained in the pre-Union legislation which is here repealed.

Sir, those who made the laws in the last century had a certain wisdom when they made their legislation. One finds, for example, that in the Natal law which the hon. the Minister quoted, it was made very clear what the offence was. It says there that, that in the case of a male person being found dressed as a woman in circumstances indicating a probable intention of availing himself of such disguise in order to commit an offence, it is considered an offence. In other words, the exact position was stated. Now that has been repealed. In the Cape law on this matter it is also quite clear what they were getting at. It was directed against people who might be intent upon housebreaking. Therefore the law stated: “Any person found by night having his face blackened or wearing felt or other slippers or being dressed or otherwise disguised with a criminal intent” was guilty of an offence. One finds also in the case of the Transvaal law that the position was made very clear. It stated: “The wearing or use of masks, false beards or other means whereby disguise is effected in public roads or other public places is forbidden”. In terms of that law, it is clear what may not be done. It goes on, however, to provide that disguises at theatrical performances or other diversions and the holding of masked balls at places accessible to the public, shall not fall under the law. I do not go to that many balls, Sir, but I do not think that we have masked balls any more. At any rate, masked balls were specifically provided for. One knew just where one stood. [Interjection.] No, one did not know where one stood at the masked ball, but at least one knew that one had not committed an offence by attending a masked ball. Then it was provided that one could go disguised into a public street, as part of a procession, for example when one took part in what the Americans would call a parade.

In practice that will also be excluded.

Yes, because people in such a procession would not appear to have a criminal intent, although when one sees the students around on Rag Day in Cape Town, one would sometimes wonder whether it would not be reasonable to suppose that, dressed and behaving as they do, they might not have such intent.

The language of the Bill leaves a lot to be desired. In Gilbert and Sullivan’s “Trial by Jury” there is a wonderful little ditty. It goes something like this:

I would say that it must have been a Bill such as this which inspired such a brilliant passage.

I hope the hon. member is not reflecting on anyone inside or outside the House.

No, Mr. Speaker, in my other capacity as a lawyer, I can only say that I am delighted with this Bill.

Sir, I wonder whether this Bill was shown to either representatives of the Bar or representatives of the Side Bar before it was brought here. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can indicate whether it was or not. I think it is very important that a Bill such as this should in fact go to such bodies who have experience of the difficulties attaching to provisions like this, and who have experience of the difficulties in relation to the language which is used here, when it comes to determining in court whether someone is guilty or not guilty of the offence which is mentioned here. The question as to whether it may reasonably be inferred that a person probably had an intention, is a difficult question for a court to decide. If it is merely that it may reasonably be inferred that he had an intention of committing an offence, then this is an objective test which the court will apply. The court will decide the case using the usual standards, in the same way as one determines anything merely by inference. Of necessity, the intention must be inferred from the facts that there are. When a court looks at a matter, it looks at that matter in accordance with certain rules. It weighs the evidence and says: Is this intention consistent with all the proved facts, or is it not inconsistent with all the proved facts? Sir, what does a policeman do? He does not do this at all, obviously. He looks at something and says: I think it might reasonably be inferred that a person will probably commit an offence. That is one thing, but to say that he will commit an offence, is another thing. However, to say that it may reasonably be inferred that such a person is probably going to commit an offence is going to cause a lot of difficulty. I really think so. I wonder whether this Bill is not going to cause the taxpayer to have to cough up quite a lot of money because of wrongful arrests. This sort of language invites all sorts of speculative action on the part of those who have the authority to arrest.

I notice from clause 3 that this measure is to be applied in other parts. If this is a real problem in those areas, and the hon. the Minister is frank with us, we shall have no difficulty in giving him our support in that regard.

I do not quite follow.

This measure is to be applied in South-West Africa and the Caprivi Zipfel. If the hon. the Minister is in fact having trouble with regard to people disguising themselves there, and he will be frank with us about this matter, we shall naturally give him our wholehearted support in dealing with difficulties encountered in those Territories.

What does “disguise” mean? This is another difficulty with regard to this Bill. There is no definition of a disguise. What one does when one wants to know what the meaning of a word is, of course, is to look it up in the Oxford English dictionary. The definition of the transitive verb “disguise” reads as follows:

This happens all the time.

One wonders how many people are, in fact, disguised in this world in terms of this Bill, although not necessarily exhibiting to someone watching an intention of committing an offence.

Dual personality.

In terms of this definition almost anyone that wears a toupee, which is very popular to-day, is in disguise. I am told that if one wears a toupee, it does make one feel very much younger and fitter, but I would say as well that that person is in disguise without any doubt.

With a criminal intent.

This is the point. Might it be regarded by someone as wearing a disguise, “in circumstances from which it may reasonably be inferred that such person probably had the intention of” inciting someone else to commit some offence or other? The language is so wide, as I have indicated before, that it is not clear what one could do or what one could not do.

Girls wear wigs.

Yes, as my hon. friend says, how many girls wear wigs. I think it would shake hon. members if they knew.

What would the position be if you wear a wig?

I suppose I would be unrecognizable, and anyone who did then recognize me, would doubtlessly become suspicious, as a result of the fact that I had disguised myself.

Finding you where?

This is the question, and it depends on the sort of suspicious mind that one has when one observes the event. I know the Ku Klux Klan used to wear hoods. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has asked his former colleague, sitting towards his right, whether this is going to affect any of his organizations or not. I do not know whether they do in fact wear hoods. As I have said, the language is very, very wide. I hope that when we come to the Committee Stage, it may be that the wording of this subsection could perhaps be made sufficiently clear at least not to encourage enthusiastic officers of the Force to act according to its terms.

If one pretended to be drunk, one would in terms of this Bill commit an offence, if it were in circumstances from which someone felt it could be inferred that such a person might be drunk.

That is not a disguise! [Interjections.]

Clause 1 (1) reads:

Now what is the definition of “disguise”? To “conceal identity of oneself … as someone or something else” or “conceal, cloak, one’s opinion; disguised in or with drink or liquor, drunk”. The noun deals with “garb”, “artificial manner” and “deception”. It stipulates furthermore “use of changed dress or appearance for concealment’s sake”. One can, in fact, do any of these things for a purpose, to conceal the real position. I appreciate that no policeman under normal circumstances would consider that this might be so, because he would not be looking in the Oxford English Dictionary and wondering about the extent of this provision. I mention it merely to indicate that the wording of this clause is very wide. We are, after all, dealing with words which have to be applied.

They would like to disguise all the Blacks in the European areas.

The position before was that this is what most of the legislation got at, namely people who blacken their faces by night. Is that not much easier to understand, if that is what we are after? I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind in this regard at all. I do not know what sort of offences the hon. the Minister is wanting to get at. It is quite clear that the old legislation, which is hereby being repealed, aimed at housebreakers, people wandering around in felt slippers by night, blackening their faces, and so on. This provision is set out so vaguely that one does not really understand what the hon. the Minister is after. If he could tell us, I am sure that we might possibly find a better wording, so as to make it clear what the intention is. I do not like the use of the word “probable” with the words “may reasonably be inferred that such person had the intention of committing an offence”. “That such person probably has the intention” is a very difficult matter to decide. The objective test of whether he had the intention is one thing. The test as to whether he “probably” had the intention, is however going to be a very difficult matter for any court to decide, because it introduces a subjective element. In other words, it is not now an objective test, something the court can determine from those circumstances that it is reasonable to infer that he had the intention of committing an offence. It is now a case of whether it is reasonable to say, under those circumstances, that he probably had that intention. If one is, in fact, arrested wrongly—I think it is very feasible that this might happen under these circumstances—by some zealous person, anxious to see that this law is carried out, and he then brings an action against the hon. the Minister for wrongful arrest, what is going to happen? I do not think that the wording of this clause is going to help the taxpayer very much in a civil action, because it seems to me that he might have to pay up. The question is: What is probable, and what is not probable, and who determines whether it is probable? Is it an objective test or a subjective one?

Similar phrases have already been interpreted by our courts.

I appreciate that, when it comes to arrests of this sort, a man can act according to his powers. If he thinks it might reasonably be inferred that it is probable, he is entitled to act. But so often the position is that those same circumstances do not give rise to the same opinion in the mind of a Judge as they do in the mind of a police constable. I think here lies another source, another area, for difficulty or wrongful arrest and for civil actions against the Minister, and therefore against the taxpayer for wrongful arrest. But this is something with which we can deal further in the Committee Stage. I am sure that all those who may want to know whether they may disguise themselves will be pleased to know that they can at least now find what they may and may not do embodied in a law of Parliament. However, I doubt whether they will find much comfort from this law when they look at it but they will, as I have said, at least know where they stand.

At this stage we do not offer any objection to the principle of the Bill. We have suggestions to offer for its improvement but those we shall bring forward during the Committee Stage. I hope all hon. members attached to the legal profession will apply their minds to the ways in which this Bill may be improved. This is not an easy matter. Therefore we wish the hon. the Minister luck with this Bill although we foresee that under the present wording he is going to be faced with more difficulties than success.

The hon. member for Durban (North) wants to know whether the legal profession was consulted in regard to this Bill. My reply to that is that this Bill was neither submitted to the Association of Law Societies, nor to the Bar Council. It is not an absolute practice for all legislation to be submitted to the legal profession. As regards South-West, I want to say that South-West was in fact consulted and raised no objections. They gave no indication of their having some specific difficulty or other.

As far as the rest of the hon. member for Durban (North’s) argumentation is concerned, I may just say that the position is as I explained it. An attempt is being made at either consolidating and adapting or repealing all pre-Union legislation. This is one of those cases where we did not simply want to regard legislation which is connected with it as no longer serving any useful purpose and consequently to repeal it. Hence this attempt at substituting something for it. What was done subsequently, was to take the best features from the pre-Union legislation. The Department arrived at the conclusion, and I am in agreement with it, that the pre-Union legislation was entirely ineffective, except for that of Natal from which we derived the greatest benefit.

It is, of course, very interesting to speculate on when a person is in fact in disguise and when there is the intention, or the probability of an intention, to undertake something. But, after all, these things do work out differently in practice. A policeman is, as a rule, a reasonable person, and if he were to catch someone at night in the vicinity of a ladies’ hostel—a person who is disguised in some way or other, be it effectively or ineffectively, and moving about stealthily in the shadows—a reasonable person would after all be able to infer that that person probably has the intention up his sleeve of doing something of a criminal nature. Under these circumstances a policeman will, in terms of the Bill, be able to arrest such a person, to charge him and to summon him to appear before the court. It therefore remains for the court to decide how the land lies. In my introductory speech I pointed out that the onus of proof resting on such an arrested person, is not a difficult one. After all is said and done, it is merely a preponderance of possibilities or of probabilities. If such an arrested person did in actual fact have no ulterior motives, it ought to be very easy for him to prove to the court why he had been at that particular place, at that particular moment and under those particular circumstances. He may, for instance, have been on his way home from a masked ball and, as the light was too bright for his eyes, he moved along in the shadows. It is then up to the court to believe him or not. In any event, this is an honest attempt at obtaining legislation in regard to a matter which is worth trying to combat. But if the hon. member could suggest something better to us during the Committee Stage, we shall welcome it. However, I am satisfied with the Bill as it reads at present.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill provides for the establishment of a joint pension fund for teachers, officials and other employees of various categories in the permanent employ of the provincial administrations and the Administration of South-West Africa. After negotiations between the Administrations and the Government and in consequence of an instruction from the Cabinet and in consultation with the Administrations, a joint pension scheme for the above-mentioned staff was devised which will replace the 11 existing pension funds and which (a) falls under the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and is to be administered centrally by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, and (b) corresponds as far as possible with the Government Service Pension Fund in respect of membership contributions, conditions and pension benefits.

Although the new fund will be controlled by the Government, provision is made under clause 7 (1) and (3) for the Administrations to be consulted in regard to contribution rates, conditions and benefits. However, the Bill makes no specific provision for consultation of representative staff organizations, and in terms of clause 11 statutory bodies at present serving this purpose are disbanded. Contact with such organizations is nevertheless considered desirable for the success of a pension scheme and will, according to the practice of the Department be promoted where necessary on an ad hoc basis and without proceeding through statutory channels. As soon as the proposed pension fund is established, the existing funds will stop functioning and the new fund which will carry on their business will take over all their assets and liabilities. In this connection I refer hon. members to the provisions of clauses 2, 3 and 12. Some of the existing funds are actuarially sound on the basis of their present contributions and benefits, while others show actuarial deficits. These deficits will be taken over by the new fund.

Apart from this, the adjustment of the new scheme to the pattern of the Government Service Pension Fund will cause the present contribution rates of virtually all members to be lowered, while at the same time the benefits will be improved as compared with those offered by the existing funds. This points to the likelihood of a further actuarial deficit. Provision is therefore being made in clause 7 (2) (e) and (h) of the Bill and in the draft regulations for negotiations in regard to making good these deficits in order to place the new fund on a sound footing.

Under clause 4 (1) and (2) all staff in permanent employ who were members of an existing fund on the day before the coming into operation of this measure, or such staff as are appointed after that date, will become members of the new fund without any option. To the member who thinks that the introduction of the new conditions and benefits is not in his interest, however, clause 6 offers an opportunity to elect, within a specified period, to return to the benefits, conditions and contribution rate of his previous pension scheme while remaining a member of the new fund—in other words, his benefits will be paid out of the new fund, but calculated on the old basis. This amendment, in my opinion, is a great improvement on the situation we so often find in connection with pension funds. Where members are given a choice of either the old or the new fund it happens time and again that some of those members subsequently approach the Select Committee to ask that their original choice be changed. The position under this legislation will be that everyone will go over to the new fund. Those who object to doing so, must, within a certain period, apply for readmission to the old fund. Now, as I have said, I think that this is an improvement on the existing situation.

All pensionable service under an existing fund will be recognized as pensionable service under the new arrangement. In terms of clause 5 the pensionable age for all male and female members is put at 60 years, but the retirement age may be prescribed within the limits of 55 and 65 years by the employer concerned.

As in the case of the Government Service Pension Fund male as well as female members will contribute at the rate of 4 per cent of their pensionable income.

As I said at the commencement, the new fund had to be designed in such a way as to correspond as closely as possible with the Government Service Pension Fund, and as far as the benefits offered by the new fund are concerned, I therefore want to say no more than that they are virtually identical to those of the Government Service Pension Fund.

The moneys of the Pension Fund will be deposited with the Treasury and will be invested in Government stock by the Public Debt Commissioners.

In conclusion I may mention that the scheme will be embodied in regulations which will be promulgated in terms of clause 7 of the Bill, and these regulations will before being promulgated, be referred to the quarters concerned for comment.

There are quite a number of details in connection with this Bill which we can, in my opinion, deal with more effectively in the Committee Stage.

We on this side of the House intend to give our support to the Second Reading of this Bill. However, before making certain comments on the Bill I would like to express our congratulations to the hon. the Minister. I believe this is the first occasion on which he has had to introduce legislation in this House as a Minister. We realize that his task is not an easy one and that he has a tremendous responsibility towards a large group of persons, including the civil pensioners, and therefore I think it is fitting that the first Bill introduced by this new Minister should be a constructive Bill which is designed to improve the conditions of a section of the pensioners of South Africa. We wish him well in the task that lies before him.

We realize that the Bill before us is undoubtedly an improvement as far as the administration of pension funds is concerned. We know that the provinces have experienced difficulties from time to time, but we realize that the Government Service Pension Fund is regarded as the basis for civil pensions. When we look at the preamble to this Bill, we see that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions will be responsible for the establishment, control and administration of this central fund. Here I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the staff position in his Department is such that they will be able to cope with the necessary additional administrative work which will be involved in controlling and administering this fund. We know that there is a Government Pension Fund Division within his Department which administers the four main funds which are administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It is obvious that with the passing of this measure a good deal of administrative work will have to be undertaken by his Department. The Department will have the benefit of the computer and other modern means of administration but you still require personnel to undertake the necessary programme of work.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has referred to the 11 funds—mainly teachers’ funds and the hospital funds of the various provinces which are defined in the first clause of the Bill. Clause 2, which deals with the establishment of the Fund, provides that the assets of all the pension funds mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (h) of clause 1, shall be transferred to the Fund. As far as the 11 funds under the definition of “Provincial or the Territory Pension Fund” are concerned, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why the last three, the Hospital Officials’ Pension Fund of the Orange Free State, the Administration Employees’ Pension Fund of the Territory of South-West Africa, and the South-West Africa Teachers’ Pension Fund are not included in subclause (2) of clause 2 in terms of which the assets of certain pension funds are to be transferred to the Fund.

The question of transferability from various departments is, of course, a matter which has been before the Select Committee on Pensions from time to time where people have petitioned Parliament for the condonation of breaks in their service. It is noted that provision will be made under the regulations for the transfer of funds as far as members are concerned. I believe that an important principle is involved here. We have had occasion in the past to study various reports concerning the transferability of pension funds, and we realize that there are unfortunately large numbers of people who do not regard a pension fund as a fund for their retirement, but merely as a sort of savings fund and often resign in order to obtain immediate benefits.

Sir, there are certain other aspects of this Bill on which we hope to obtain greater clarity in the Committee Stage. The question of pensionable age is another matter which exercises the minds of many people. Under present-day conditions, with the advancement of medical science, a pensionable age of 60 is regarded as very low indeed. Although provision is made that the pensionable age may vary between 55 and 65, “pensionable age” is defined in the Bill as 60 years. I would like to stress that under present-day conditions a pensionable age of 60 does appear to be low, and I would ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred to clause 7, which deals with regulations. Provision is made here that the Minister may, in consultation with the Minister of Finance and after consultation with the Administrators of the provinces and the Administrator of the Territory, make regulations. Obviously the provinces are vitally interested in the pension funds of their employees. Although the word “Administrator” is not defined in the Bill, I assume that the hon. the Minister means the “Administrator-in-Executive”. Obviously the executive committees of the provinces concerned must also have an opportunity to consider these regulations, since these funds will be administered mainly by regulations. The regulations cover a wide field; they cover all aspects of the administration of the Fund. I mention this point because in subclause (3) of clause 7 provision is made for the big stick to be used if there should be any difficulty as far as the provinces are concerned. Subclause (3) reads—

It is hoped that the provision to the effect that the regulations will be promulgated after consultation with the Administrator, means that there will be consultation with the Administrator-in-Executive, so that the Executive in each province will have an opportunity carefully to study and peruse the regulations under which the Fund will be administered. The establishment of the fund in principle we believe will facilitate smoother administration in regard to the provincial employees who belong to the other funds. We believe it is in the interests of good administration that this fund should be closely aligned to the administration of the Government Service Pension Fund, and we assume that it will fall under the supervision of the Minister so that this certain degree of uniformity will exist between provincial employees and those who are also provincial employees but fall under the Government Service Pension Fund and will be dealt with on more or less the same basis. We have pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

We are glad that this measure has the support of the Opposition. We are glad that we are eliminating here the practical problems which were experienced in the past in respect of staff members who were transferred from the establishment of one province to that of another. We are satisfied that adequate consultation took place beforehand between the hon. the Minister and the quarters concerned. We also believe that there is no danger of anyone being adversely affected by the new measures now being proposed here.

As regards the regulations, we also believe that the provision being made for consultation with the Administrations and the other bodies ensures that matters may be expedited and that the matter will not have to be referred back to this House every time for new legislation to be passed, but that the Minister will be able to eliminate hitches immediately by means of regulations. We appreciate the fact that the Opposition supports the principle of this Bill.

I should like to associate myself with the introductory remarks of the hon. member for Umbilo in congratulating the hon. the Minister on the introduction of his first Bill in this House. He has taken over a very important portfolio. It is important because it is a portfolio that gives him an opportunity for creative legislation. There are portfolios where Ministers carry on as they have carried on for years and years, but this one, in these modern times, gives an opportunity for creative legislation. This is, I am bound to say, a Bill that we can support, because it introduces a measure of rationalization. Instead of having a number of funds in the country for civil servants in various departments, the hon. the Minister comes along and says we will now have one fund; we will rationalize it, and civil servants in all the provinces will be treated in the same way.

When I say it is a good Bill, I mean it is good because in the past these various funds had, as the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, varying fortunes. There are some that are stable and others which in the past have been almost bankrupt. I remember once discussing funds in this House when one fund had a deficiency of R3.6 million and another had a deficiency of almost R8 million. It is almost incredible, but there you are. If you establish a pension fund, it is a financial fund. Of course there is the other side of the fund which was dealt with by my colleague and that is the interests of the men concerned. Hon. members know what my views are in a previous debate. We are now speaking about the establishment of a new fund, and I want to give some suggestions to the hon. the Minister on how he should proceed in the future, not only with this fund but with any pension fund he has to establish. We are establishing one fund to take over funds, and the question I wish to put is this: Why should we have funds at all? A fund is a survival of colonial government. When men went from one colonial government to another, they were not satisfied that the colony would survive as their own country would survive, and therefore funds were established so that their future would be assured and their pensions would be assured. But where you have an organization and especially a government which is so powerful that there is no possibility that in the future it will not survive, this form of pension fund is out-dated. The correct form of pension fund is a non-contributory pension fund. I am now speaking of modern countries, where there is no such thing as a contributory pension fund.

The hon. the Minister mentioned 4 per cent. Why should we have 4 per cent or any other percentage? When I introduced the debate concerned some years ago we discussed this question of a non-contributory pension fund for the State, and it was pointed out that the employees might not like this fund. Well, well! Three years later the employees, at the most recent Public Servants’ Conference that I know of, discussed this among other things. They said they would agree with the Government; they did not wish to have increases in salary, but they wished to have certain fringe benefits. They mentioned subsidies on housing, that the vacation bonus should be increased and that the medical fund contributions should be reduced, etc. But the most important was in regard to the pension fund. They said that the Government should take over at least 50 per cent of their contributions to the fund. In other words, they had come more than halfway to meet my point of view. Now, whether the hon. the Minister can refer this Bill to his experts to see whether it is possible at this stage in the establishment of a fund (because that is what we are debating) to go for the noncontributory form of fund, I do not know. But we shall have to do it some day. The big banks are doing it to-day, other big organizations are doing it, and the biggest organization in South Africa, the Government, is hesitant.

Which banks are doing it?

I went into it when I introduced the motion. I referred to banks in South Africa. The British Civil Service have a non-contributory pension fund. What are we doing in a contributory fund? We take 4 per cent or 5 per cent from the civil servant and the Government adds another 5 per cent, making 10 per cent, and they put it into a fund. You need a staff to do all these things; and then they keep records of how much each man has contributed. That is all unnecessary. With a non-contributory fund you keep a record of the man’s service. When I was a child we used to have naval pensioners. You said to a man in the Navy: If you serve for 20 years or 25 years you will get a pension. Fancy saying to a South African to-day, who is doing duty up on the border: Here is your pay, but we have taken off 5 per cent to put into a fund and we are adding 5 per cent. We should not do that. We should say to a soldier that if he serves for a certain number of years he will get a pension. And the British Civil Service get a very liberal pension [Interjection.]

Now I should like to say a word about the Bill before us. There are three clauses I wish to refer to, clause 2, clause 3 and clause 7. The Minister has mentioned the important clauses. In terms of clause 2, the new Fund will take over the assets of the funds existing to-day. When I heard that I wondered whether there were just assets in these funds to-day, but in terms of clause 3 we will also take over the liabilities of these funds. All that is being taken over. It is a big take-over bid and that is the modern thing in business to-day. If you look at the Stock Exchange lists you see many take-over bids. Now we are taking them over, and I say to the hon. the Minister: Let us have some rationalization. There are 11 existing funds and here we are establishing one fund to take them all over. Why not appoint a commission now and ask the civil servants, the employees, to co-operate and investigate the possibility of introducing now for all these people who are coming in, a non-contributory fund? The ideal time to have done it, and I suggest it to the Minister of the day, was when they were contemplating increased salaries. When they did increase salaries, it would have been quite easy to say that part of the increase in salary would be the abolition of contributions to pension funds. Bookkeeping would be reduced, because it is purely accounting. My hon. colleague will deal with all the other aspects of pension funds: How old men should be treated; how they live in their old age, what provision should be made for women; especially when they are married; what dowry they are given when they leave the service. All that must be considered, but that is the personal side. I am speaking purely of the financial side.

I congratulate the Minister and I hope that now that we have got on to the right wavelength, we shall be able to do something in the future. The old fund system is colonial; I want a good South African non-contributory scheme.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I want to express my sincere thanks to the two Opposition members who congratulated me on my appointment to this post. I want to assure them at once that I adopt a serious attitude in regard to this matter and the Department entrusted to me and that I shall devote my best energies to dealing successfully with these particular matters as far as it is within my power to do so. I am grateful for the kind expression of good wishes and for the assistance I have received from those hon. members.

In reply to the debate, I just want to repeat what I said in my Second Reading speech, namely that the majority of these matters can be dealt with more easily in the Committee Stage, when I should like to reconsider the various clauses.

As regard the position of staff, negotiations are being entered into and agreement is being reached with the Administrations to ensure that in respect of staff transfers it will be possible to obtain the necessary staff for my Department to deal with this matter. I expect that manpower will be saved in that way and that we shall be able to deal with this matter by reaching an agreement in regard thereto.

The reason why the three funds mentioned here by the hon. member, namely the Hospital Officials’ Pension Fund of the Free State, the Administration Employees’ Pension Fund in South-West Africa and the South-West Africa Teachers’ Pension Fund, are not mentioned in clause 2 among the funds mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (b) of clause 1 (xiv), is simply that in this clause the assets to be taken over from funds are mentioned. Those three funds have no assets, and for that reason they have been omitted.

The hon. member for Umbilo put a few questions in connection with the retirement age. As has been announced, it is the aim that these funds should be placed on the same basis as the Government Service Pension Fund as far as possible. As regards the latter, the present position is that the retirement age is 60 years, with a margin of 55 to 65. This affords the employer the choice of keeping an employee in service up to the age of 65 years or not. This principle has always been accepted, and at this stage I have not felt it necessary to change it. For that reason the age limit applicable to the other pension funds is brought into line with this. The whole matter may perhaps be considered at a later stage and everybody will then have to be treated on the same basis. However, I do not think I should introduce a radical change in respect of these funds at this stage. I first have to combine the two funds as they should be.

The hon. member referred to consultation with the Administrator. This automatically means the Administrator-in-Executive Committee. It is accepted like that. In other words, the legal provision does exist. However, the hon. member will grant me this, that when a difference of opinion arises and a deadlock is reached in regard to some matter or other, somebody must have the power to decide and to accept the responsibility. That is why this clause has to be inserted in terms of which the responsibility is placed on the Minister to make the final decision in this connection in consultation with the Minister of Finance, who has to deal with the financial implications. I want to say at once that one does not exercise that power gladly or without sound reason. One also has to bear in mind the interests of the various officials, but the fact remains that we should have the opportunity in this case of having a final decision taken by some person, who will then in the last resort be responsible for it.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Westdene for giving this matter his support. One is always grateful when a person such as he, who has special knowledge of this matter, participates in the debate and that we can make use of his special knowledge.

As regards the hon. member for Kensington, I just want to say that I find it very pleasant to cross swords with him in this particular field, because we had to face each other so often in the past on educational matters when we acted as the chairmen of our respective groups Where both of us are now finding ourselves in a different field, I want to tell the hon. member that, as regards the idea of a non-contributory pension scheme, he is quite right in that such schemes do exist in certain countries. I also want to say at once that I am, personally, not completely opposed to the idea. It is still felt at present—and I think it is right—that a person should, while he is still doing his work, make the necessary contributions and save, in order to ensure that he will be in the position to look after himself when he retires. Even in Britain the Civil Service took steps in this direction during the past few years although it has not yet switched over to a full-fledged contributory scheme. That means that even in Britain itself no such scheme exists in respect of the Civil Service. Of course, both the State and the provinces have the power to stipulate that they will contribute a larger proportion of the pension contributions while the official himself will contribute a small proportion. This has already been done in the case of both the teachers in the Transvaal and the civil servants. In other words, this is a concession which the officials actually received in the form of hard cash. I shall go into the whole matter, but at this stage I think it is too much to ask for a complete change to be introduced. I want to tell the hon. member that we shall go into the matter in course of time, but I am not prepared to do so at this stage.

Mr. Speaker. I think I have replied to the questions which necessitate a reply at the moment. We shall go into the matter further during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Dairy Industry Act of 1961 contains a number of provisions in terms of which restrictions are imposed on the uncontrolled expansion of the local margarine industry. In the first place, the manufacture of margarine is restricted to a number of factories which are registered under the Act as margarine factories and, in the second place, provision has been made to lay down, by way of Ministerial decision, the maximum quantity of margarine which may be manufactured in each such factory.

The objects of these provisions are to prevent the production of margarine from assuming such proportions that the development of the dairy industry might be impeded by it. For the purposes of the Act it is not of much consequence who or what person is the owner of a margarine factory, as long as such owner (whoever he may be) of course acts within the limits of the provisions of the Act. As far as the Act is concerned, the aforesaid restrictions therefore do not attach to the person of the owner.

In this regard I may point out that the Act does not require such factory to be registered in the name of the owner; furthermore, the person of the owner is not material to the purposes of the promulgation of the quantity restriction in terms of section 14 (a) of the Act either. As the Act reads at present, any person may manufacture margarine, as long as it is done in a registered margarine factory and provided he does not manufacture more margarine than the maximum quantity laid down for that factory.

Owing to the restrictions on the quantity of margarine that may be manufactured and the fact that the manufacturing of margarine is a fairly expensive undertaking, only a small number of industrialists have so far entered this branch of industry. However, these persons consider the interests they have since built up in the profession to be of a vested nature. An example of this is that the quantity restriction which is from time to time imposed on every factory in terms of section 14 (a), is considered to be a “right” in practice. For the person to whom such a restriction relates, the quantity mentioned in the restriction has become his “quota”, in other words, his share of the total quantity of margarine that may be manufactured in the Republic during the particular year. He regards that “quota” as a right which he can transfer to some other person at will. In reality one can of course not transfer a prohibition which has been imposed upon you to another person.

Recently the problem of transferment of the quota cropped up specifically after two firms which had previously manufactured margarine as a joint undertaking, decided to establish a new company to handle the manufacturing function on behalf of the first-mentioned two firms. When we wanted to impose the prohibition on the new company, the two firms objected on the ground that their respective “quotas” were being given to a third person, in other words, their traditional rights were now being alienated without their consent.

Because it was not the intention of the Act to place obstacles of this nature in the way of manufacturers, it occurred to us rather to adapt the relative provisions of the Act to the position existing in practice. It is accordingly proposed that the existing prohibition system as set out in section 14 be replaced by a new system in terms of which a complete prohibition is placed on the manufacture of margarine, except under the authority of a permit, which may be issued by the Minister after consultation with the Dairy Board. Such permits, which will lapse on 30th June and be renewed with effect from 1st July every year, will be issued subject to appropriate conditions, the most important of which will be a restriction of the quantity of margarine which may be manufactured in terms of such a permit.

The effect of the proposed new system will be that those persons who have already acquired vested interests in the margarine industry will annually receive their respective quotas, which may then be dealt with at will. It will for example be possible for the permit holder to make arrangements with someone else for the actual manufacture of the margarine. The present system of restrictive registration in respect of margarine factories is, however, being left unchanged.

The Bill also provides for a few incidental matters, such as granting the Minister the power to cancel the registration of a margarine factory if more margarine is manufactured in that factory than is specified in the permit. Similarly, provision is made for the imposition of a penalty if any person contravenes or fails to comply with the provisions of the new permit system. The latter proposed powers already exist in the Act, though in a different form, and consequently contain no new principles.

The Bill also provides for an inspector to be authorized to seize any books and documents which may be used as evidence in the case of a charge of a contravention of the Act and the regulations. It has recently come to light that some creameries have been committing certain irregularities, for example in connection with the testing of cream, and in order to prevent repetitions of this, it may be necessary to prosecute the offenders. The problem is, however, that at present the Act makes no provision for an inspector, when he discovers such a contravention, to seize the necessary evidence, and accordingly it is now being proposed that this power be inserted into the Act. Similar powers appear in parallel legislation, such as the Marketing Act, and this therefore contains no new principle.

Mr. Speaker, I trust you will permit me these few words. This is the first time that the hon. the new Deputy Minister of Agriculture introduces legislation, and on behalf of this side of the House I want to congratulate him on his appointment and to wish him the best. The Deputy Minister has always done well in this House and his rapid rise in the National Party is dramatic, as he had only been a member of this House for two years prior to his appointment. We want to congratulate him on that. We also know that he is a progressive farmer and has made a great success of his own undertakings. Therefore we want to express the confidence that the success he has achieved there, and the sound principles he has applied there, will be carried over into his Department, and that the progress in the field of agriculture will be just as dramatic as his progress in the Nationalist Party.

As regards this legislation, I want to say that this side of the House has no objection to it. The Deputy Minister gave us a perfectly clear explanation of why these powers are being called for. However, there is one little point which in my opinion can be cleared up at this stage already, and that is in connection with clause 2, which empowers the Minister in his discretion to cancel a permit if it is found that a margarine factory produces more than is allowed in its permit under the proposed new section 14. I want to ask the Minister that when this clause is applied the factory concerned should at least be given a reasonable chance. It should not just be applied summarily. If a factory continually produces more than the fixed quota, it is a matter of pure obstinacy and then it is clear that the factory is not prepared to co-operate. I nevertheless think the Minister should give those people the assurance that the powers he is now going to receive will not be applied in such a way that people will suffer losses, but that notice will be given so that the people concerned will know that the Minister and his Department are going to take action.

This side of the House would like to have the assurance that this clause will be applied in such a way that it will not cause hardship to a margarine manufacturer that will be affected by this clause. We wholeheartedly approve of clauses 3 and 4, and therefore there is no further objection to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for his congratulations. He said he hoped everything would now run smoothly in the agricultural field. In this regard I differ with him a little, because I think that after Minister Uys has handled this Department for ten years it is a very efficient one!

As regards clause 2, I can assure him that nothing unreasonable will be done. The Dairy Board will make the recommendation that the permit be cancelled. I think the hon. member is also aware that the whole idea behind this piece of legislation is to afford protection to the dairy industry and therefore I am grateful that the Opposition supports this measure. I can give him the definite assurance that no unreasonable action will be taken against a manufacturer, because they also make use of agricultural products, and we also want to afford them an opportunity to make a living.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to say at once that when a motion of this nature is moved, it affords the most wonderful opportunity, of course, for making propaganda on a large scale out of the predicament in which a large section of our population finds itself to-day. I want to assure hon. members, however, that this is not the motive behind this motion. Our motive in moving this motion is that we should like to have an exhaustive discussion on conditions existing in our agricultural industry, and consequently hon. members opposite will find that we, as in the past, shall be realistic, fair and constructive. However, our attitude should not be interpreted as one which is lacking in earnestness and warmth as far as the problems of our farmers are concerned, and even less should it be interpreted as one devoid of points of attack and pressure. We want to give the Government a sound thrashing (goed op sy herrie speel)—or should I say “Harry”—because of its lack of action.

At this stage the situation in the industry is too serious to start a fight which serves no purpose. Furthermore, we hope that the discussion which we shall have to-day will contain the basis of the discussion on agricultural affairs which we hope we shall have in the course of this session. In addition to this I want to say at once that I cannot refrain from making the following statement. The hon. Ministers in charge of agricultural affairs, and the Government in general, had adequate warning over the years of what would come. We know that they looked for various excuses and that they even accused the farmers of a lack of efficiency, of living beyond their means, of paying too much for land and of failing to display any managerial ability. Some of these accusations may be true of some farmers, but they are not true of the majority of South African farmers. The majority of our farmers are conscientious, progressive, and have a deep realization of their duty towards South Africa. There are ominous signs for our industry which the attentive observer cannot help but see. There are large shortcomings in the industry and these are becoming more prominent every day. Now one has to ask at once why the debts of the farmers have increased so tremendously. Why does this amount come to much more than R1,200 million at present? Is this all due to the purchase of more land? Or is it, as the former Deputy Minister said, merely a sign of prosperity in South Africa? Why are more and more farmers advising their children not to enter the agricultural industry? This is a feeling which is springing up all over and which is gaining in momentum in South Africa. Why is there less confidence in the industry at present than ever before in the history of South Africa? Straightaway one has to ask the question why the dividend on a farming enterprise is so low to-day. Why can any other sector of our economy pay 9 or 10 per cent on borrowed capital, and be prepared to do so, whereas the farmers cannot do likewise? Why are we not making any progress with the conservation of our soil, progress which will help us to see the light in this struggle? I want to remind hon. members that Dr. Ross said 20 years ago that we were losing 200 million tons of our best topsoil per annum. This loss is now increasing to 300 million tons per annum.

How do you know that?

The hon. member asks how we know this. We do after all have scientists, people who are informed about these matters and who are experts in this field, who are able make these estimates. Hon. members opposite will have to produce evidence that these people are wrong. A further ominous sign is that farmers are feeling that their margins of profit are decreasing in spite of increased production. Why do farmers feel that they constantly need larger units to make a profit which will ensure them a better standard of living? Why are so many farmers leaving or selling their farms to find a new livelihood? I have here with me a letter from a leading farmer in the district of Uitenhage. He wrote to me that 40 per cent of the farmers in his area had left that area during the past two or three years to find a livelihood in the urban areas. Many of them had left their land unattended, had leased their land to others or had given their land to others to look after it for them, and they were at present working in the cities.

To-day the hon. the Minister, and I hope his Deputy too, must give us straight answers to the question whether they are of the opinion that these conditions will continue to exist in South Africa and whether they want these things to be arrested or at least slowed down. I want to ask the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite whether they are aware of the fact that the poor farmers are not the only ones who are disappearing—and about this we have never had any argument with the Government—but that we are also losing the good farmers whom we can least afford to lose. Do hon. members realize what our annual consumption of food will amount to by the year 2000, when our population will number more than 40 million? Let me give you a few examples, Sir: Mealies, 100 million bags; wheat, 24 million bags; slaughter cattle, 4 million; sheep, 11 million; milk, 1,200 million gallons.

I have here with me a few extracts from speeches. By reading them I want to remind hon. members of the population explosion problem with which the world, and also South Africa, will have to contend during the next 15 to 20 years and even longer. These speeches were made by people concerned in the agricultural industry. In Die Burger of Tuesday, 6th December, 1966, Mr. P. T. G. Nash, managing director of a large company manufacturing fertilizers, said the following (translation)—

Mr. Nash, who is a leading industrialist, is not the only one who says these things. There is also Dr. Du Plessis, Chief Director of Agricultural Policy of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. If my memory is not playing me false, he is occupying a prominent position in the Department to-day. The following is what he said in April, 1968 (translation)—

For South Africa, therefore, the situation in the future is serious. The situation for the world as a whole is also serious. I feel that we should be prepared to cope with that situation when it does come. Not only shall we have to feed this growing population of ours in South Africa, but we shall also have to increase our daily calorie consumption per capita considerably, and this can still be increased considerably. Our present calorie consumption per capita per day is only approximately 2,879 calories, whereas it is 3,050 calories per day in Western Europe. Consequently we on this side are asking whether we will be equipped to cope with this situation when it does come. I have quoted to hon. members what was said by learned people. They maintain that millions of people will die of starvation by the year 2000, unless plans are made now. Such a disaster will not pass South Africa by. We know that our tillable agricultural land is little. Now the country is standing by helplessly and witnessing how thousands of farmers are leaving the land. To suggest that higher production merely results in surplusses, is not going to achieve anything, especially when we have regard to the fact that the consumption of many of our foods can still be increased to a large extent. It is claimed, for example, that if every member of the public would consume only an additional one-third of a pint of milk every day, we would no longer have any surplus of milk. I have to point out that in spite of the increased production in South Africa, the fact that prices have not kept up with the increase in production costs, is one of those alarming signs in our agricultural industry which I have already mentioned. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to page 5 of the latest report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. In the first place, let us examine the position in respect of field products. The prices of field products decreased by approximately 4 per cent during the financial year 1967-’68. I read what the report has to say in this connection—

Winter grain was the only field product of which the price showed an increase. Summer grain prices, which play a dominant role in the price index of field products, decreased by 5 per cent owing to the high production in 1967 and relatively poor realizations on exports. The prices of horticultural products were 8 per cent lower than during the previous year. The prices of deciduous fruit, more than half of which is exported, decreased by 10 per cent during the year under review. The sharpest decrease occurred in the case of apples, and the 1968 prices were approximately 25 per cent lower than in 1967. There was also a fairly sharp decline in pear prices. It is estimated that the producer prices for canning fruit dropped by 10 per cent.

These are the overseas prices, of course.

During the year under review there was a general decrease of about 10 per cent in vegetable prices. There was an increase in the price of slaughter stock, but wool prices also decreased. In the case of dairy products there was a slight decrease, whereas prices of poultry and eggs dropped by approximately 2 per cent for the second year in succession.

I am not trying to make any propaganda out of this. After all, these are facts. Let us examine the other side of the matter, namely farming requisites. Farming requisites amounted to a record sum of R434 million and exceeded the expenditure of the previous year by R31 million. Let us examine the short-term requisites of farmers. In the year under review the amount for machinery and implements stood at R296 million. This exceeds expenditure during the previous year by R18 million. In the case of fertilizer, there was an increase of R7 million. Fuel sales to farmers amounted to R49 million. This amount exceeds that of the previous year by R4 million. Total expenditure on machinery and implements for the year under review is estimated at R95 million, which exceeds the figure for the previous year by R12 million. I can mention the prices of other farming requisites which show the same tendency. This compels me to say that this is the dilemma of the South Africa farmer. Although his volume production shows an increase, there is an unavoidable decrease in producer prices with a simultaneous increase in production costs. No one can deny that the increased rates of interest in South Africa have been costing the farmers approximately R20 million per annum extra since 1966. To have to pay from 8½ to 10 per cent interest on a mortgage loan, as many farmers have to do to-day, makes any farming enterprise an uneconomic one. The control which the farmer has over his production costs is becoming less and less and he is being left at the mercy of the supplier of farming requisites. Industry in South Africa is being compelled to increase the prices of its products, and this in turn is passed on to the farmers who need those essential things for production. The difference is, however, that the farmers cannot add increased production costs to the prices of their products arbitrarily. A cynic once described this in the following terms: The farmer buys wholesale and he sells retail. But what is worse, is that a decrease in produce prices can result in a smaller turnover in spite of increased production. As soon as this happens, and I know of many farmers who have had this experience, there is one solution only, namely to retire from farming. I want to address the following appeal to the Government. Unless the diligent farmer has the assurance that he will be able to cover his production costs and receive a reasonable compensation for his capital investments with due regard to the risk factor, there will be no economic progress for him.

Even if it does not rain ever again.

The hon. member should not anticipate me. I shall come to the drought shortly. To suggest that demand and supply will determine the price of the farmer’s product, is totally unrealistic. It drives farmers from production and wrecks price stability. The profitability of farming will never improve before the Government can offer the farmers a stable price so that they need not fear a decrease in price in good times. I also want to say that if consumer subsidies have to be extended, over and above the products to which they apply at present, it simply must be done and the money will have to come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Only in this way will it be possible to keep consumer prices low while at the same time offering the producer a reasonable price. Up to now only producers have been penalized whereas consumers have not been receiving the benefit of a lower price either, and if there are certain sectors which find themselves in temporary difficulties, the State must help them. At present we are subsidizing border industries to a large extent and this money comes from the pocket of the taxpayer. Why can a crippled sector of our agricultural industry, such as the wool industry, not receive similar treatment? By properly rehabilitating those people now, the State will recover that money in future as those people will then be in a better position to pay tax. Consequently I feel obliged, particularly in view of the conditions which are at present prevailing in so many of our stock-farming districts, to give attention now to the drought condition in South Africa.

Evidently there are more than 70 districts in the country which have already been declared drought-stricken areas. The situation is alarming. It is assuming the proportions of a tragedy, if it has not done so already. It is estimated that the country has already suffered a loss of approximately R150 million in the Transvaal and the Free State as a result of the drought. Farmers have spent thousands of rand on fodder, and the Government still continues to render assistance on the basis it has been doing so over the past four or five years, unless the hon. the Minister is going to announce new methods to-day of assisting them. Subsidies are granted on the transport of stock as well as loans and subsidies on fodder for a certain number of stock. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all seriousness: “Is this assistance adequate when we have regard to the fact that many farmers have been feeding their stock continuously since 1962?” Sir, this drought did not hit South Africa overnight. In some districts the drought has been lasting for many years. I know of a farmer who has spent approximately R28,000 to keep 4,000 sheep alive over the past 14 months. Recently I read in the Press of one farmer who had spent as much as R90,000 to keep his stock alive. Hon. members in this House who are in contact with the people outside, know that the examples I have just mentioned here are not the worst ones. The condition of the veld in South Africa is deteriorating rapidly at present. However, a great deal of fodder, in one form or the other, is still available in this country.

Has the time not arrived for this Government to organize the purchase of this fodder and to convey it to strategic places in drought-stricken districts from which farmers can buy it at reasonable prices? I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that the people simply are not in a financial position to do these things themselves. It is now becoming the duty of the State, the duty of his Department to organize this type of thing and, if it is necessary, the Government ought to give consideration to using the Army for this purpose, as they did in the past, before the situation deteriorates even more. A few years ago the Army was used to convey water and stock. I know that grazing is not to be found anywhere and that consequently it is not necessary to transport stock. But what the Government can in fact do, is to buy the large quantities of surplus fodder which are still available in South Africa at present so that this may be made available to the people at cheaper prices.

Where is the surplus fodder?

The hon. member may drive through the south-western districts and the Western Province and he will see one hill of fodder after the other which people are prepared to sell, but the farmers are not in a position to buy.

That is chaff.

What is wrong with that? It is an excellent fodder to use under these circumstances.

Does the hon. member for East London (City) agree with you?

Sir, I am afraid that the Government will have to go even further than taking the steps I have just mentioned if they want to save the situation. We shall also have to try to save more animals than the 1,000 sheep or 400 head of cattle per farmer in respect of which the Government is prepared to give loans or subsidies. Sir, I want to repeat what we said here before, i.e. that the Government will have to give consideration to some or all of the following interim measures: The rates of interest on mortgage loans are hopelessly too high and are breaking farmers in South Africa as never before in our history, and the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister know this because they receive reports on this condition every day. Wherever a group of farmers meet they complain about the unbearable interest burden.

Sir, has it never been recommended and has it never before happened in South Africa that rates of interest were subsidized? We should like the hon. the Minister to reconsider the proposal we made last year, i.e. that mortgage loans should be subsidized at a maximum of 2 per cent per annum with retrospective effect from the beginning of January, 1966. The hon. the Minister will have to reconsider the desirability of giving farmers more time to repay their loans. He will have to reconsider applying the veld reclamation scheme on a larger scale in South Africa so that we may reclaim our land and our veld, but then he will have to make it more advantageous for the farmers to participate in this. To-day I want to advance a plea especially for those farmers who have never before made use of any assistance and who have tried to fend for themselves on the strength of their own credit-worthiness. We shall now have to give those people considerable assistance. The Government will have to give consideration to whether the State should not grant an allowance on wool, up to a maximum of 3c per lb.

Mr. Speaker, an emergency condition such as we have in South Africa, demands emergency measures. We realize that our agricultural industry can be saved, but then we must be prepared to take these steps I have mentioned and to spend large sums of money on the industry. I am addressing this appeal to the hon. the Minister: See to it that our children will not ask us one day, “What were you doing in the sixties when the agricultural industry in South Africa was being neglected to such an extent?”; see to it that our children will not ask us one day, “Why did you not save the agricultural industry when it was possible for you to do so”?

I do not want to disappoint my old friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, by not moving an amendment, nor do I want to embarrass him by putting this amendment to the vote. The hon. member said that he did not want to make political capital out of this matter, and I am convinced that after the hon. the Minister has replied to this debate, the Leader of the Opposition will lose another member. I should like to move the following amendment, of which I have already given my hon. friend a copy—

1. (a) its long-term planning in order to keep the agricultural industry on a sound basis, demonstrated by the exhaustive investigations which have and are still being conducted from time to time and the implementation of positive recommendations;
2. (b) the effective assistance rendered to farmers in the distressed areas; and
3. (c) the manner in which soil and water conservation is being encouraged in order to achieve the greatest possible permanent stability in agriculture”.

The hon. member said he did not want to make a political issue of this serious situation. This drought has indeed landed our farmers in an emergency such as there has rarely been before. The people who have been suffering, are, in the first place, the sheep farmers, particularly in the Karoo areas and in the Eastern Cape, where conditions are very serious. The summer grain areas promised to yield one of the finest crops there has ever been, but within the last 14 days this has been reduced to a minimal crop by the tremendous heat and drought. Immediate assistance is required. Sir, we have been sitting in this House for 14 days. One week was spent on the motion of no-confidence. After our arrival in Cape Town I inquired from the Minister concerned and his Department whether one of the hon. members opposite was ever going to ask what immediate assistance the Minister was going to offer. The hon. member for Newton Park said that he did not want to make a political issue of this matter, but The Cape Argus and other English-language newspapers wrote a long time ago: “M.P.S are to tell Parliament of their plight.” This has to be done in Parliament. Why do they put a matter of such an immediate, urgent nature to Parliament if they do not want to make propaganda out of it? The emergency exists, and now this warning comes from the hon. member to the Government, but the Government has never been approached to discuss this matter. No, they come to Parliament to warn the Government through Parliament. If this is not political propaganda, I do not know what political propaganda is.

If the hon. member can make any political capital out of this in these circumstances, I give that to him as a present. We on this side of the House took immediate action here in the Cape and asked the Minister what possible assistance he was able to give and we asked him to expedite that. In these circumstances we are sorely disappointed in the Opposition because of the action it has taken by raising this emergency here in this House without its having made any other attempt. But now the hon. member “warns” the Government through Parliament. Well one realizes that the Opposition has been in the desert for 20 years, and to use the jargon of the usual weather predictions, we hear of isolated thunderstorms and scattered thunderstorms, and now the Opposition has been looking to see, after all the thunderstorms they have experienced whether an isolated thunderstorm would not break over Newcastle, but before that could happen, the tremendously destructive hailstorm of Umlazi occurred in this House. What a blow that was to them under the present political circumstances! [Interjections.]

Sir, this Government has been in power for 20 years, but what did we inherit from the United Party? In what position did the country find itself when the National Party came into power in 1948? There was a Minister of Agriculture who had absolutely no feeling for the agricultural industry, nor any experience of the industry. He was the United Party Minister of Agriculture, Advocate Strauss. The result was that the only things we inherited from them were a few Acts which had not been implemented properly. There were the Marketing Act and only eight boards, but the commodity boards which existed at that time, were used for the specific purpose of forcing down current prices during a time of rising prices. They used those commodity boards as a lever to force down prices. Then there was the Soil Conservation Act. These are the two most important Acts we inherited from the United Party, i.e. the Marketing Act and the Soil Conservation Act, but no soil conservation had been done and no machinery had been created for implementing soil conservation. We inherited only the Acts, which we have had to amend time and again.

The land was scorched by drought, the veld had been destroyed through injudicious grazing and there were stock diseases and mortality on a tremendous scale. Stock as well as grain was infested with diseases and pests without any plans or attempts having been made to combat those diseases. Now they are the people who want to push this important matter to the forefront, but during the years when they could have done something, they simply neglected everything. This is the inheritance we received from them and we had to try to restore the scorched and eroded and destroyed soil.

But what have you done in 20 years?

Now the farmers are being blamed for the fact that these tremendous problems still exist, but they never received any State aid worth mentioning. The only State aid there was at that time came from the Land Bank and the maximum loan granted by the Land Bank to a farmer was R10,000. Its funds were very limited. It could only give limited assistance, but now that it grants bigger loans, the hon. member for Newton Park uses that as an argument to prove how debts have increased. But at that time those loans were granted by private institutions and banks, etc., and to-day they have been taken over by the State in consequence of an amendment to the Land Bank Act. The total sum given out on loan by the Land Bank from the time of its establishment in 1912 up to 1947 amounted to R602 million. At that time the Land Bank was the only institution which loaned money to the farmers, except when the State gave advances for a limited period in 1933. The total sum paid out by the Land Bank from 1947 to 31st December, 1968, amounted to R5,858 million, which is an enormous figure. This is a reflection of the measures which have been created in this country to assist farmers. I am not saying that adequate measures have been taken, because as the country develops and progresses, new measures will have to be taken. There is absolutely no comparison between the ways and means which are being employed at present to promote the agricultural industry and those employed by the Party of hon. members opposite when they were in power. Personally I am satisfied with the development which there is at present. The first warning addressed by the hon. member to the Government concerned the lack of purposeful planning.

Hear, hear!

I shall come back to this point later. The hon. member also complained about the lack of interim assistance to the farmers. This is not something the Opposition can talk about. They have to change their policy completely and break away from the past. The hon. member also spoke of soil and water conservation. Certainly it is not for me to announce on this occasion all the measures which are in operation at present and all the figures and amounts in this regard. I expect the hon. the Minister to make an announcement in this connection in due course. It is not for me to do so, and I leave that to the hon. the Minister.

I should like to say a few words about planning in so far as it concerns farmers. The National Party has set a goal for itself, and this still is its target, which can be classified under five headings. Its first objective is to afford farmers the highest degree of protection under the circumstances. The second essential point is that the individual freedom of the farmer is to be maintained. I think hon. members will agree with me that this should not be affected. The third objective is to ensure the increasing efficiency of farmers, and the fourth is to assist the farmers in adapting themselves to changed circumstances. The fifth objective of the National Party is to ensure a safe livelihood for the farmers. However, before this task can be commenced, the resources at our disposal have to be exploited to the full. What are the resources we have at our disposal under the present circumstances? The first basic resources are our soil and our water.

In the meantime many farmers are bankrupt.

I have already told the hon. member what we inherited from his Party. Those hon. members know nothing about soil and water conservation, and the United Party did not do a single thing about them. They simply allowed things to take their own course. This Government was the first to apply soil and water conservation in this country, and at this stage it is doing everything within its power to extend this service even more so as to adapt it to conditions prevailing at present. Another of these basic resources is capital. At present the question of capital is an extremely urgent matter amongst our farmers. For this reason the Government completely reviewed the position of the Land Bank in 1959, so as to enable it to make a larger contribution to alleviating the needs of the farmers. At that time the funds of the Land Bank were not as limited as they were in the past when only Government funds were made available every year.

Another matter I should like to refer to is the manpower problems of the farmers. I attended many congresses at which the then Minister of Native Affairs acted as speaker. When the farmers used to complain at those congresses that they did not have servants and workers, the Minister always made a joke of that. The hon. member for Newton Park spoke of the rural areas becoming more black without his first having viewed the matter in its right perspective. I am also concerned about this phenomenon, but one should be very careful not to do any damage to this major source of manpower, particularly not if one has regard to the present circumstances of the agricultural industry. It is an easy matter to quote figures and to speak of the increase in the black population of the rural areas. There is another aspect I want to discuss, and that is the economic services which are available under the present circumstances. In the first place we should note the distress relief aids for farmers. We are living in a country in which droughts are not unknown. At the present moment the country is experiencing yet another drought and we cannot expect this to be the last. Under the present circumstances we must take the necessary precautionary measures to the best of our ability. I am not saying that a fodder bank is the right solution. At present we have two commissions to determine what the circumstances of the farmers are to-day. The Marais Commission is investigating the agricultural conditions and the Viljoen Commission the water conditions. The hon. member applauded the appointment of these commissions and said that these were their commissions. But now the hon. member attacks the Government about the circumstances in which the farmers find themselves. I also want to discuss the economic services and drought relief services which are now being rendered to farmers during this emergency. I agree that the Government should go to extremes to assist farmers who are in distress on account of the drought. When a disaster hits Roodepoort or Johannesburg or any other place in our country, as it so often does, contributions come from all over the country to assist those who have been hit. The only institution which can assist the farmers in this emergency, and in that way ensure the food supplies of the nation, is the State.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when business was suspended I was giving an exposition of the most important objectives of the National Party and its policy of planning. I was also discussing the economic services, after having dealt with the resources at our disposal. The following auxiliary services exist: Emergency relief, drought relief and subsidies. In addition there are loans made available by the Land Bank and the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. A 5 per cent rate of interest was laid down by legislation. In addition there are agricultural co-operative societies. The following auxiliary services are being rendered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, for example, publications, agricultural education and extension services. In addition there are protection services, such as price stabilization. When we came into power there were only a few boards which I have already mentioned. An additional ten commodity boards were immediately established in 1948. At present there are 19 boards, which administer the production of the main agricultural products, and this has the effect that in reality the farmers are in control of fixing prices through the agency of their own organizations. The farmers themselves serve on the various organizations. At the head we have the two Ministers, who are practical farmers, with an advisory committee constituted by the agricultural organizations and the various boards, and these parties deal with the fixing of prices. Producers represent the majority on these boards. This really is an organization with a policy of planning which is novel in South Africa. Then there are mechanical control, field pests control and control of the quality of produce. The most cordial co-operation is required from the Ministers of Agriculture and of Water Affairs and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture in consultation with their Departments and the farmers in South Africa to achieve this end. We are aware of the fact that South Africa has often experienced these drought conditions. The available land is constantly decreasing. In the light of the present climatic conditions it is a challenge to the farmers to supply South Africa with the necessary foodstuffs in future. There is a constant withdrawal of the best agricultural land for other purposes. I say this is a challenge in the light of which we want to give the farmers every credit for always having fulfilled their duty towards South Africa under difficult circumstances. I am convinced that through the co-operation of the various groups the farmers in South Africa will still be able to meet this challenge for a long time to come in that they will be able to supply the food requirements and the necessary raw materials for industrial development. To this I want to add that the National Party will, in spite of the 21 years it has been in power, remain in power for a long time to come because it was and still is the only Government that knows the farmers, that knows their needs, and that is able to render assistance under these emergency conditions and to lend a helping hand in meeting the challenge South Africa is presenting to the farmers.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Christiana commenced his speech prior to the suspension of business for lunch by outlining the critical conditions in the agricultural industry, I was under the impression that he was going to make some very sound suggestions about what had to be done as far as the agricultural industry was concerned. He even upbraided this side of the House for having brought this matter to Parliament and for not having made direct representations to the Minister, as though he would know what had been done. He went on to say that that side of this House had made so many representations. I thought he was going to announce some of those wonderful representations here in this House so that we might learn what the Government ought to do in these times of crisis. But what did he do then? He let loose and tried to fire a blast of bird-shot at this side. We heard of scattered thunder-showers in Newcastle, and who knows what else. At the end of his speech I was still waiting for his suggestions, [Interjections.] There were no suggestions! I still want to know what the leader of the agricultural group on the Government side has to recommend. He moved an amendment as long as a newspaper in which he referred to the long-term planning of the Government for which we should express our gratitude. Do hon. members know how long this long-term planning is? Twenty-one years! They have been building for 21 years on the foundations laid by this side of the House. [Interjections.] The Marketing Act and the Soil Conservation Act were placed on the Statute Book by this party. How have they been building on those foundations? They have been building in such a way that the farmers are more bankrupt at present than they were in 1948. There is no doubt about this. Let there be no arguments about this. In 1932, when that side of this House was in power, there was a depression …

On what side were you at that time?

At that time those of us in the agricultural industry who needed assistance, pleaded for the crumbs from the rich man’s table. How meagre that assistance was in 1932! When one considers the position to which this Government has brought the farmers over a period of 21 years of reasonable prosperity, I wonder what would become of the farming community if the agricultural industry were to experience another depression similar to that of 1932.

The hon. member quoted astronomical figures with regard to Government expenditure for the benefit of the farmers. But is the fact that the farming community finds itself in the situation of being unable to help itself merely attributable to a cycle of years of drought? I am afraid to speak in this House … [Laughter.] Yes, I am afraid to speak in this House about the seriousness of the crisis. Those hon. members may laugh and if they want to they may ridicule this. The hon. member said a short while ago that we were living in a time of crisis, but as far as I know that hon. member has never travelled along the east coast from beyond Umtata through the Cape Province to De Dooms and he has not seen the present condition of the Cape Province. It is not only a question of it being black because of the drought; it is white, because the shrub-veld is dead. Hon. members may go to the Transkei and the Ciskei to look at the cattle that is still left. It is enough to break one’s heart that animals should be in such a condition. Hon. members may go through the Karoo in an attempt to find one farm where the farmer is not feeding his stock if he is still in a position to do so and can obtain the necessary loans.

Whose fault is that?

This is what one finds from one side to the other. I shall now speak of who is to blame, and I am going to be harsh.

I have just been asked, “Whose fault is that?” I have said, “Let us not pretend that the drought alone is to be blamed”. Year after year this side of the House has been advancing repeated pleas for precautionary measures to be taken against the droughts which come year after year. What has been the reaction of that side of this House, and more specifically of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture? At that time the hon. the Deputy Minister was not around. [Laughter.] Yes, it almost is a laughing matter: he still is fairly young. This Minister of Agriculture ignored us all the time when we were advancing pleas for fodder banks on a national or decentralized basis which would allow of all available supplies being stored to be used when required for feeding animals in times of emergency. When I speak of all available supplies, I am speaking not only of lucerne-hay, oat-hay and oat-hay which has not been threshed, but also of groundnut-hay and every other kind of hay and roughage which can be used. I spoke about this in this House before. [Laughter.] I notice that that side of this House is of the opinion that this discussion on agriculture is a joke. [Interjections.] The distress of the farmers is something funny to them. It is something to ridicule. The noise coming from the lower end of this House is terrible. I almost cannot hear myself talking. When from 70 to 80 per cent of the farming community at this stage finds itself in financial difficulties to such an extent that that Minister, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet no longer know what recommendations to make for assisting them, that is something to ridicule. Actually they have never known what to recommend. But when this side of the House makes suggestions which can be useful, they ridicule them. The hon. the Deputy Minister will know what. I am talking about, because where he comes from in the Transvaal and here in the Western Cape supplies which are available can be found everywhere, and these supplies, which can be used and mixed with concentrated feeds in the right proportions for keeping starving animals alive, often go to waste. This can be stored at decentralized places throughout the country to be made available to farmers who find themselves in these circumstances. The hon. member for Colesberg referred to chaff this morning and said that chaff was not a fodder. Do you know, Sir, chaff mixed with molasses and some concentrated feed is a wonderful fodder when an animal is staggering on his legs. It is not possible to feed it concentrated feeds only, it is not possible to feed it mealie-meal only, even if we do have it available. But when we have roughage to feed to the animals along with that, we can make do and at least improve the condition of the animals.

When I read this amendment and see the reference to long-term planning and gratitude to the Minister, I think of certain reports we read over the last few days and I imagine to myself how strange that must sound to the consumer. In the annual report of the Department we read that during the year 1967-’68 such a large quantity of cheese was produced that some had to be exported, but 5 million lbs. of dried milk, mainly skimmed milk were imported. Then we also read a few days ago that more than 2 million gallons of milk were destroyed here in Cape Town. Surely this must sound very strange to a consumer. It must be strange for him to read that a country has to import 5 million lbs. of dried milk while more than 2 million gallons of milk are destroyed here in Cape Town over a period of a few months. I then ask myself the question, and I am now also asking the hon." the Minister, what kind of planning and what kind of co-ordination exists between the Dairy Board and the Department which cannot prevent such a large quantity of milk being destroyed in one centre only. Our country is spending foreign exchange on the importation of large quantities of powdered milk, and foreign exchange is what we sorely need. I am mentioning this one matter in order to illustrate the lack of planning and especially long-term planning to which the hon. member refers in his amendment.

I now want to make a few suggestions in respect of assistance which can be given during this dreadful crisis we are experiencing at present. I do not want to waste any more time on discussing the amendment, I do not want to try to shoot it down. The amendment refers to long-term assistance, but contains no suggestions in this connection. I now want to suggest certain ways and means which were suggested in this House before with regard to animals in the drought-stricken areas. I want to confine myself more specifically to animal husbandry, because I know more about this subject. If losses are suffered by a farmer who goes in for crop farming those losses apply to one year only, because when he plants a crop the following year and has a harvest, he can make up his losses to some extent and even rehabilitate himself to some extent. Losses suffered by a stock farmer, however, when he loses a season’s calves or lambs or other animals, are not of such a short-term nature. It takes him a long time to make up the losses and to rehabilitate himself. We are aware of the existing systems of paying subsidies in respect of fodder schemes for areas which have been declared areas to be subsidized. We know that for a certain period a farmer can receive a subsidy on fodder for his breeding sheep and breeding cattle, and that the farmer is assisted to the extent of one-half of the costs and also as far as railage of a limited number of stock is concerned. We are grateful for this assistance, because a person who is in distress probably is grateful for any kind of assistance. However, on previous occasions in this house we spoke of the suffering animals. At present there are hundreds of thousands of head of cattle in the Eastern Cape that are suffering on account of the drought. In this figure I include the cattle in the Bantu areas, because it does not get us anywhere to close our eyes and to pretend that that is not part of this country’s stockpile. Nothing is being done to assist them in this connection. Surely those people and animals must be considered to be inside the Republic of South Africa until such time as the Government has granted those areas complete independence. When we look at this and consider the large numbers of animals that are perishing at present, that are perishing today, because there are no means of keeping them alive so that they may serve as food which we need for our country, one wonders how it can be possible that nothing positive has ever been done to help solve this problem. I dealt with this question before. Something positive is being done in other countries, it is being done in one of our neighbouring states, i.e. Rhodesia.

When any area in Rhodesia is declared a drought-stricken area, the officials of the department visit that area, make a study of the position and tell the farmers concerned, “We think you should get rid of 25 or 50 or 60 per cent of your animals. This is the month of March, and even if it were to rain, you would not have sufficient grazing. We shall assist you in getting rid of those animals. We shall pay you so much per weight and grade through the cold storage agent of the Government for everything you sell to us”. I know of very few farmers who are not prepared to co-operate in a scheme like this. All of them co-operate. They sell their redundant stock to the State through its cold storage chambers. This applies to all stock, not only breeding stock. They sell year-old calves, weaned calves and all animals they think they will not be able to feed. They sell these animals to the Government at a fixed price on a weight basis. The Government or its agents inquire from those people who still have veld, grazing, fences and water, whether they want to purchase any of this stock, and they undertake to finance them for this purpose. They tell those people, “You can buy the stock at the same price as that which we paid for the stock, plus 15 per cent for administrative expenses. You can owe us the money until you market the stock, and in the meantime interest at 6 per cent is added to your debt”. A farmer then takes the stock and farms with them. If it is young stock, he keeps them for three years, and the older stock he keeps for two years or one year.

Now hon. members opposite should not talk to me about the independence and the individuality of the farmer as such. There is no longer any farmer in this country who has the necessary grazing but no money for buying stock who will not be prepared to brand the stock he will be able to buy if the Government advances him the money to do so and to say that that stock is the Government’s security. The kind of pride which would not be prepared to accept something of this nature, is something of the past, because the distress of the farmers is too serious. This system is being applied in the countries to which I have referred. The farmers who are being assisted are told, “Return the stock when they are ready for the market, and in the meantime you are not paying anything but you owe the money to the Government”. The original price, plus interest at 6 per cent, is deducted when that stock is sold, and the balance goes to that farmer.

They go even further than this. The farmer who sold the stock, wants to rehabilitate himself. He wants to buy stock again. After that farmer has had rain and has grazing for animals the Government tells him, “Now we are going to assist you to buy stock again. We shall advance money to you so that you may purchase stock. You can also buy according to grade and weight and you will also pay 6 per cent interest. But in view of the fact that you had to sell at a time when prices were low and your stock was lean, and in view of the fact that you now have to buy while prices are higher, we are going to place £5 per head of cattle at your disposal free of charge.” The sum of £5 is not a loan or a subsidy, it is a free grant. This system has been in operation for many years in those countries to which I have referred. They go further than that and tell the farmer. “If you want to look after your farm and if you have had a severe drought and are not able to buy the number of stock you had to sell at that time, we will assist you even more. We owe you £5 per head of cattle for the number of cattle we took over from you at that time. For every head of cattle you want to buy we shall give you £5, and for the difference between the number of cattle you sold at that time and the smaller number you now wish to purchase because you want to save your grazing, we shall make £5 available to you per head of cattle and you may spend that on soil conservation or fencing or on anything you like, provided you produce a certificate to us that our officials are satisfied that you are spending the money on improving your farm. In that case we shall make the money available to you”. Is this not a way of combating the effects of the drought and retaining the stockpile? Is this not a system we could have applied in South Africa a long time ago? Is it impossible to employ an agency to buy animals in the poor parts of the country and to take them to those parts where there still is fodder for them? There still are large areas in the Transvaal and Natal which have grass. Do the people have the financial means to buy animals and to let them graze there, or are they also experiencing financial difficulties. If they do not have the necessary money, why does the State not assist them? Will it cost the State anything? No, not a single cent. The animal is the State’s security, and it is on good grazing. It is not on poor grazing where it may die in which case the farmer concerned will have to repay the money to the State but will be unable to do so because he has lost his stockpile. The animal is on good grazing and when it is sold, the farmer who provided it with grazing will make something out of the transaction and the State will recover its money plus interest. That money can then be loaned to somebody else.

I have been farming in Rhodesia for many years, and I have often made use of this system. Two years ago when Matabeleland suffered a severe drought, the Government bought more than a quarter million head of cattle in that area. This stock, except that which was ready for the market, was removed to the north and placed in areas where there was grazing. All of them are still there; the breeding stock, the young animals, the animals that had to be saved.

Sir, my plea concerns every animal, every human being, everybody’s future food provisions which we are neglecting, but it concerns in particular the young breeding stock, the calves and the lambs that are perishing over the length and the breadth of 500 miles of Karooland. Heaven alone knows how we are going to rehabilitate our stockpile one day. I do not know. We have now reached the stage where we no longer even know what to recommend to the Minister for the positive rehabilitation of the people on a long-term basis to such an extent that they can once again become the proud farmers they used to be 20 years ago.

I have read in the newspapers and have heard over the radio that the Minister was going to receive a deputation of the S.A.A.U., possibly accompanied by a deputation of the Wool Growers Association, who wants to see him about agricultural matters during these times of crisis. But when? Only on the 12th of March. The condition is so serious that it will not keep to the 20th of this month. As things are now, every day which passes is costing the country one million rand and more. Sir, I expected the Minister to have informed the South African Agricultural Union that he would see them on Monday, if not on Sunday or even this afternoon.

If it is costing R20 million in any case, it will not cost more if it does not rain.

The point at issue is not the R20 million which it will cost, but the means the Minister has to employ during this critical period to save the people. But what means is he employing? What is he doing to assist the people during this critical drought? Neither proclaimed districts nor subsidies on fodder for breeding stock have been obtained. The farming community will not be saved in such a way. Some of the matters I mentioned are long-term projects. Now there is no point in talking about the establishment of a national fodder bank. This cannot be done now. Through development this can be done over a few years. At present the supplies are not available. Representations have already been made to the Minister of Transport because farmers are struggling to get hay from one point to another; now it is a shortage of tarpaulins, then a shortage of trucks and then again delays. And the people are struggling until they are at their wits end to obtain fodder for their animals that are perishing by the day. But this situation is so urgent and critical that this Government should not waste one day more before making a dynamic attempt to save the farmers, not only on a short-term basis but also on a long-term basis. But this first has to be done on the short-term basis because the people are in a predicament from which they cannot save themselves. They are going bankrupt by the day.

Sir, I want to conclude. I tried my best to suggest ways and means which the Government may employ to save the stockpile of this country. This is a method which can be set in operation to-morrow. The animals have to be removed from the Great Karoo. Next week at the Woolgrowers’ congress we shall discuss the Karoo and its rehabilitation, but how the Karoo is to be rehabilitated. I simply do not know. [Interjections.] An attempt at rehabilitation can be made by trying to withdraw some of the stock from the Karoo. If this Government were as good and as efficient at removing starving animals from areas in which there is no fodder to areas where there is, as it is at removing people who have food to areas where there is none, it would have progressed a very long way.

Mr. Speaker, I find it a great pity that we have now lowered the standard of this debate somewhat. The mover of the motion started off the debate on a fairly high level. He did not try to make political propaganda out of this debate. The hon. member for East London (City) now got up and delivered himself of a lot of statements. Among other things, he suggested something which is totally impracticable. I only want to mention a few points, because I do not have much time. The hon. member said that the State should buy the surplus sheep from the farmers and hang them up in cold-storage chambers, but goodness knows for how long. Now I want to ask the hon. member for East London (City) … [Interjection.] Just give me a chance. I only have a few minutes. Where is the hon. member going to get sheep to place in cold storage that one can eat? [Interjection.] Wait a moment, just give me a chance. [Interjection.]

Order!

A good friend of mine, from Krom River, whom the hon. member also knows very well, tried to put more than 4,000 sheep on the stubble-fields in Touws River. I saw with my own eyes that they were so thin that they were doubled up. If the Minister had to buy such sheep, slaughter them and put them in cold storage, who would eat them? He can skin them. That is all he can do with them. One should be a little more practical in one’s thinking on these matters. It is now suggested that the Government should provide a fodder bank. That would be a good thing, but there are other ways in which the Government provides facilities to the farmers so that they can build up their own fodder banks. But one cannot build up a fodder bank if every dam in the Karoo is empty. It simply cannot be done under these circumstances. Not one of the rivers there is running any longer. The pumps they have on the banks of the rivers and water-courses cannot provide any water to irrigate the lucerne, etc. Throughout the Karoo as well as in the Eastern Cape there is not a single farmer to-day who, if it does not rain to-morrow or the day after, can plant a single pip of fresh fodder. Why not? They have no water. I fully agree that the farmers are in a precarious position. We cannot make light of it. Certain members did laugh when the hon. member made a comment, but I do not think they had any bad intentions. We must remember that the State has done a great deal as far as soil and water conservation are concerned. While travelling by aeroplane to Johannesburg the year before last, I was surprised at the number of dams that had some water in them. Such dams are not to be seen to-day. There is simply no water.

There are other ways in which the farmers can be helped. Something has been worrying me a long time now and I should like to mention it to the Minister for his consideration. A heavy burden resting upon the farmers today, is the fact that they are completely tied to the banks. They cannot obtain any money today to carry on their farming operations. We know of course that one can get advances from one’s brokers. But in large areas the wool clip is so small that the farmer has to send his wool away. He then, as it were, gets no return on that clip. In the meantime he has an overdraft at the bank and his debt increases every month as a result of compound interest being charged.

I now want to address a very polite request to the Minister. The farmers will not be able to recover unless two things happen. In the first place we hope that we will soon have some rain. This would help to boost the farmers’ morale. Their morale is as low today as it has never been in the Republic of South Africa before. It has reached an absolute low. The second requirement to rehabilitate the farmers is that the rates of interest will have to drop. These are the two requirements I want to assure the Minister to-day that, in spite of what we have heard from that side and from this side of the House, the farmers will get on their feet again if we have good rains generally and if the rates of interest can be reduced. If that happens, we shall again attain the level we had before.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of supporting the hon. member for Newton Park in the motion he has moved in this House to-day. I think it is very important that we should take every opportunity to highlight in this House the plight of the agricultural sector in the Republic to-day. Therefore I feel obliged to say to the hon. member for Christiana that he is not “with it” at all when he condemns the hon. member for Newton Park for raising the subject, and when he says that we should approach the Ministers independently. This is the highest forum in the land and the people outside want to know what we are thinking about agriculture and its problems and what the Government is thinking. It is for that specific purpose that this motion was moved. It was introduced so that the farmers outside could know what was going on. I would say that if the farmers could hear what hon. members opposite had to say to-day about the agricultural position, they would be sorely disappointed, and quite rightly so, too. Nothing really constructive has come from that side. They say they will leave the matter to the hon. the Minister. Sir, there are hon. members representing many constituencies in South Africa which are purely farming constituencies. I think that the people in those constituencies will be disappointed when they hear the negative approach which was adopted by those hon. members.

Sir, I also want to take the opportunity of highlighting the inability of this Government to deal with the problems that have arisen in agriculture in recent years. They cannot come and say that they inherited a bad estate from the United Party. They have been in power for 21 years. We did not make any mistakes but if we did, they have had plenty of time to rectify those mistakes; so, that story holds no water whatsoever. I am very pleased, Sir, that the hon. member for Colesberg has come with a sensible suggestion. I think it is clear to everybody that one of the fundamental problems that the farmer faces to-day is this question of having to pay a rate of interest which the industry simply cannot bear. But, of course, this is not a new suggestion. This is a suggestion that we have made time and time again in this House; we have high-lighted it on many occasions, and since the hon. member for Colesberg has at last seen the light, I do hope that the hon. the Minister is going to react to the hon. member’s sensible proposals.

Sir, in the time at my disposal, I want to focus attention on that aspect of Government policy which I believe has been subject to the greatest neglect; it is a very important subject, a subject on which the whole agricultural structure is based—our soil and the conservation thereof. We have recently had had handed to us the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services for the period 1967-’68, and, as in all previous reports, there is again no evidence whatsoever in this report that the Government has made any progress at all in this problem of soil conservation. In fact, each succeeding report emphasizes the fact that the problem is getting worse and they do not say in this report in which manner the Government is going to solve the problems that face the country. Sir, I do not want to quote at length but I do want to quote just a paragraph or two from this report. On page 15 it says

In other words, when a work is approved, its urgency is accepted. Therefore urgent works are not being completed, and while this process goes on, more and more of our soil is going to continue to wash away. It goes on to say—

Sir, if at this stage we still have to start investigating the causes, then when in heaven’s name will a solution ever be found? The time for investigation has passed. The time has now arrived for dynamic action, to do those things which are apparent to any practical man. That is the trouble with this Government; they are continually investigating and they do not take action. The report goes on to say—

Sir, I will repeat this for the benefit of the hon. the Deputy Minister because while I was reading this he was joking. Hon. members on the other side think agriculture is a joke. That is why they are in trouble.

You are now trying to be more stupid than you really are; you are not as stupid as you are pretending to be.

Sir, I think that is a very stupid interjection. Let me quote this again to the hon. the Deputy Minister—

I would say that that is an alarming position. A scheme which is absolutely essential is falling into disuse. In other words, the works which should be done, which are essential to the country, are not being done simply because the Government is not making available the necessary loan capital to those enthusiastic and dedicated agriculturists who want to get on with the job. Sir, that is the report that we have from the Government and its own people. We have this problem: Year after year we come along here and make constructive speeches and the Government does not listen to us. We now produce evidence from their own advisers; perhaps they will take note of what their own advisers have to say. I think it is wise that we should quote to the Government the reports of some of their own advisers. Perhaps then they will take note and realize that what we in the Opposition say is really the truth. I am going to quote from a report made by Dr. S. W. Pienaar, chief of the Division of Catchment Area Protection. This report appeared in the Daily News of the 18th September, 1968. This is what Dr. Pienaar has to say—

Sir, the position that he is painting here applies not only to the catchment area of the Orange River scheme, it applies to every catchment area in the whole of the Republic of South Africa, and that is the position after 20 years of this Government’s feeble attempts to try to get the upper hand over soil erosion in South Africa. They are obviously not succeeding. This is one of their own advisers speaking. I quote him because when I said these things last year and the year before, not much notice was taken of me. Let me go on quoting—

That position applies not only in the Orange River catchment area; it applies generally to the whole of the Republic. The whole of the extension service is understaffed. The Government is unable to get the personnel to do the job. Every year, Sir, we raise this question of a personnel shortage, but I am going to submit to the Government to-day that this question of personnel shortage can be solved if the Government makes use of the manpower which is becoming available to it because of the exodus from the land of many of our farming folk. I do not want to get involved in a debate here on the question whether a depopulation of the platteland is necessary or not, or whether it is a sign of progress or not, but the fact remains that there is a depopulation of the platteland going on; much of it, I believe, is unnecessary, but my plea here to-day is that these people who find that they are no longer able to make a living on the land be given an opportunity to strengthen the personnel of the extension service department. There are many useful people whose services can be used, and I am quite sure that a rational use of the services of these folk who belong on the land, could solve this problem of a shortage of personnel. It is very important that we try to keep as many of our farming folk on the land as possible because there is no doubt that in this country our farming folk have been a stabilizing factor in our population over all the years, and surely the Government should make efforts to keep as many people on the land as they possibly can. That is why I suggest this, and I believe that the system which they have introduced, which was recommended from this side of the House, i.e. that they get part-time assistants, a system which they are using to a limited extent, has proved a great success, and I can see no reason why that system of training farmers to assist as assistant technical officers in the Department cannot be exploited to the full. Dr. Pienaar goes on to say in this report—

Sir, I think this is a very serious accusation, that 47 per cent of the farmers farming in the Orange River project catchment area have never been visited by an extension officer. If that is the position then I feel that effective use should be made of these people who can no longer make a living as farmers, by employing them in the extension service where they can make a useful contribution. The report goes on to say—

Sir, that is the position and unless hon. members opposite accept that the position is serious, that it demands drastic action, we are never going to conquer this problem of soil erosion which threatens to undermine the whole of our agricultural industry. The Government cannot say that this problem was unknown to them. Here are their own officials pointing out the very fact and they are doing far too little about it. The report goes on—

Sir, here is an important adviser of the Government saying that R55 million should be spent in one area of the Republic, but what is this Government spending on soil conservation? A sum of R4 million was appropriated on last year’s Estimates for the whole of the Republic and here it is stated that R55 million should be spent in one single area. I think this is an indication of the Government’s ineffective approach to this subject. What worries one more, Sir, is that they must know about this, and that they are either reluctant to tackle the job or they must feel that they are not competent to tackle it, and if they are not competent then the day must surely come when we on this side of the House should be given the opportunity to take over and restore agriculture in South Africa to its rightful place. I hope that that day will come soon in the interests of South Africa’s farmers. Anyway, I think we have made the point most effectively that we are facing a national disaster, acknowledged by one of the Government’s own advisers, and so we are interested to hear what the hon. the Minister of Agriculture has to tell us about what he intends to do in the face of this position. I am purposely quoting from official Government sources so that they cannot deny these things that I am quoting. Here is a statement released to the Press by Dr. Carel de Wet, the Minister of Planning, concerning the establishment of two controlled areas, one in the Orange Free State and one in the Cape Province, in terms of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act, 1967. This is what it says—

And this report goes on—

This thorough investigation has revealed how serious the position is there, but what has prodded the Government into taking action? Not to save the farmer and agriculturalists, but because the Orange River Scheme is threatened. That is what prodded them into action. The silt position has been there for many years, but now that their big project is threatened with silting up they are taking action.

No, you better stay where you are. [Laughter.]

Hon. members are laughing; I am watching them, because to them this is not a matter of serious consequence. They realize they can make no politics out of it, so they are laughing about this matter. I think I have said enough to show how serious the position is and I now want to pose another question to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture.

I have read from this document issued by the hon. the Minister of Planning where he says that there are too many farms which are uneconomic units and that measures have to be taken to ensure that there is no further subdivision. Well, if this arrangement is carried out, obviously there is going to be further depopulation of the platteland. We must accept, therefore, that the white farming areas of South Africa under this Government’s policy can no longer maintain their present population of agriculturalists. Some of them will have to get off the land and go to the industrial areas. I am not going to argue the merits or demerits of that policy, but what I do want to know is this. If that is the policy of the Government in respect of white South Africa, how do they anticipate carrying out a rational agricultural policy in the Native Reserves where the avowed policy is to get more people back into those Reserves? Those Reserves are already over-stocked and over-populated, but now the policy of this Government is to force more and more people into those areas. I would be glad if the Minister would explain to us what is going to be the position of agriculture in the Bantu homelands. If the white areas cannot support their present population, how can it be done in the Bantu Reserves? I want to know from the Minister of Agriculture how he will manage it. Therefore I think I have every justification for supporting the hon. member for Newton Park in his motion to warn this Government that unless they take more effective measures to deal with some of the problems we have raised here to-day, unless they are prepared to spend more money on soil conservation, all other efforts will be of no avail whatsoever. We expect to hear at the very earliest opportunity of a dynamic policy by this Government to deal with soil conservation in a well-planned, systematic way, which will get rid of all the red tape which is strangling our staff to-day and which does not allow the best utilization of our available manpower, and a method which makes adequate provision for using purposefully those members of the agricultural community who can no longer make a living on the land.

I do not even think it is necessary for me to express my sympathy towards the farmers in the extremely difficult drought conditions they are suffering at the moment in most parts of our country. I think I can say that they are aware and that they know from experience, that this Government does in fact have a great deal of sympathy for them in these extremely difficult conditions. I also think that since the hon. member for East London (City) referred to the fact that the S.A. Agricultural Union will come to see me on 14th March, and since he has asked me not to put it off until that date but to see them to-morrow, I just want to point out that I did not ask to see the S.A. Agricultural Union only on 14th March; the S.A. Agricultural Union asked me to see them on 14th March. And do you know what the reason for that is, Sir? They said that they first wanted to consult their people, and the hon. member pointed out that he was one person they still wanted to consult. The hon. member is now taking it amiss of me, and is saying that 14th of March is too late; I must tell the S.A. Agricultural Union to come earlier. I will see them to-morrow if they want to come and submit their plans to me.

We have been listening this afternoon to a whole lot of theoretical statements which were made in regard to the drought, and it is very easy for any hon. member opposite to theorise—as they in fact did. We listened here to accusations to the effect that on the one hand not enough was being done for soil conservation and the preservation of our soil, and on the other hand to a plea from the same hon. members opposite asking that we should enable the farmers to keep the same number of stock on that same land in the present drought conditions, and that we make fodder available. [Interjection.] But you know you said it. Do not pretend not to understand now. We must make fodder available in order to keep the same number of stock on the same land, which has become trampled over the years under better conditions, and more in fact, as the hon. member for East London (City) put it, so that the land can be trampled to an even greater extent. I am simply mentioning this to show how easy it is to theorize here and to make the accusation on the one hand that the soil has been trampled owing to the excessive numbers of stock on it, and to make the accusation on the other hand that it is the fault of the Government that there are fewer numbers now and that the same land no longer has the same carrying capacity; and then to add the request that fodder should be made available in such quantities, by fodder banks, etc., so as to increase those numbers of stock even further, which would result in further soil erosion. That is what hon. members are advocating, and I am merely mentioning this to show how they theorise on this matter.

The hon. member for East London (City) went further. He mentioned examples of what other countries were doing, countries such as our neighbouring states, to transfer stock from parts where fodder was not available, and were making it possible for farmers to purchase stock in parts where conditions were poor and to take these to parts where conditions were better. But there is nothing in South Africa which prohibits this. On the contrary, this Government is helping to make this possible. It is lending assistance by means of the Land Bank and the Farmers’ Assistance Board. The year before last a special scheme was introduced by means of which we financed one of the co-operative societies to enable it to carry out that scheme to which the hon. member referred. But the hon. member maintains that the Government is doing nothing in that respect. He simply makes a statement and does not believe it himself, but he wants the public to believe it. That is why I say the hon. member is theorising, but now I want to ask him very specifically: Where in South Africa to-day are there conditions where people can buy up large numbers of stock in the drought-stricken areas and take them to places in other parts of the country where fodder is available? We must look at the facts, and the fact of the matter is that in most parts of our country—this applies to 90 per cent of our country—there are simply no places where farmers are able to remove stock from poorer grazing to better grazing and fatten the animals there for marketing purposes. That position does not exist. Now it is easy to accuse the Government of doing nothing in this respect. I am merely mentioning this to show how easy it is to talk about these things. Hon. members spoke for a whole year on agriculture and asked that a commission of inquiry into agriculture be appointed. That commission was appointed and it brought out an interim report which dealt specifically with this matter, i.e. the drought in South Africa. I thought that on an occasion such as this hon. members opposite would tell us what their standpoint is in regard to the report of the commission.

I said this last year.

No, hon. members did not say anything last year, because they are still making propaganda here to-day about things which are in direct conflict with the recommendations of that commission. They now maintain that they support the recommendations of the commission. Is that what they are saying? Does the Opposition support the recommendations of the commission in regard to the drought? I am asking a simple question. Does the Opposition support the interim report on the drought by the commission of inquiry into agriculture? Do you see, Sir, they do not want to say whether they support it, and I know why, it is because that commission recommended to some extent what the hon. member for Walmer asked for a moment ago. He recommended that any assistance rendered by the State to farmers in South Africa during the drought should only be rendered to farmers who could prove that they had applied soil conservation measures in their farming practice. Do you agree with that?

In theory it is correct.

That is not the question, i.e. whether it is correct in theory. I maintain that the entire argument of hon. members opposite is of a theoretical nature, and now the hon. member is admitting that things are correct in theory. I agree with the hon. member that it is correct in theory. I also agree that one cannot implement that recommendation in a time of emergency, because conditions are such that one is simply unable to implement it.

But now I want to return to the hon. member for Walmer. He levelled the accusation that nothing was being done for soil conservation; that the Government had allowed the soil to wash away and be blown away, and that soil erosion was taking place. Now I want to ask him this question: Is he in favour—and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, or anybody on that side, can also reply—of the Government taking steps to compel farmers to apply soil conservation on their land? [Interjection.] I am asking whether hon. members opposite are in favour of the Government making it compulsory in the Soil Conservation Act that farmers should apply soil conservation measures in order to prevent the catchment area of the Orange River, to which he referred, from deteriorating to the extent to which it is in fact taking place?

And what prices are you going to pay for produce?

Mr. Speaker, I honestly expected the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to display more common sense than that. Surely he knows that in the areas to which he is referring the principal product is an export product, and that it is being produced for a market which fluctuates according to international vagaries.

And the meat?

I shall come to that, do not be in such a great hurry. I now want to ask the hon. the Leader of the Opposition two questions in regard to this industry. Is he in favour of the Government, as the hon. member for Newton Park suggested, giving the farmers in South Africa a guarantee that their produce will always be guaranteed as regards production costs and a good profit for the farmer? Is the hon. the Leader of the Opposition prepared to give this guarantee? I am asking the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this simple question.

You have already heard the recommendations of the hon. member for Newton Park.

I am not talking about what the hon. member for Newton Park recommended now.

The hon. member for Newton Park made highly responsible recommendations, and are you prepared to accept them?

But of course not, I am not so stupid. I am now asking the Leader of the Opposition whether he is that stupid. Surely it is a simple question. A front-bencher in his Party is asking the Government to undertake to give a guarantee to the producer of any agricultural product in South Africa that he will obtain his production costs, plus a reasonable profit. I am asking the Leader of the Opposition whether he agrees with that.

That is not what he commended.

If that is not what the hon. member recommended, then I do not understand my own language. The hon. member did not recommend it, he demanded it on behalf of the Opposition. I shall now leave the question of export produce and discuss that of meat produce, which is also being produced there. Is the Leader of the Opposition prepared to say to the country that he will maintain the price of mutton, which is being sold on the controlled market at a floor price, in such a way that he will enable the farmer to do all these things which hon. members are asking him to do, regardless of whether this is done during a drought or during good conditions. [Interjections.] I know the hon. the Leader will not say yes, because he cannot. I just want to point out to the Opposition what kind of indirect promises they are making to the farmers when they discuss these matters in this House. I just want them to realize the irresponsibility of their own standpoints.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister is responsible for agriculture. What is his policy and his answer to these problems of the farmers?

I shall give my answer. I am not talking about the drought problem now. I shall come to that later, and hon. members need not be afraid; I never evade my responsibilities. When a farmer produced something, he produces it for whatever demand there may be.

And it fails.

Where has it failed? With the supply of this demand one can take steps to regulate it so that all the produce does not reach the market at the same time, and so that a better price can be obtained. This is being done by means of the Marketing Act. If there is an industry where special problems exist, one cannot with the marketing of that product, subsidize the price so as to enable the farmer to obtain an income. That was done to a great extent in the past. But no government, and I least of all, will say that a farmer can produce any product and that as far as that product is concerned he will receive the assurance from the State, which amounts indirectly to an assurance from the taxpayer, that he will under all circumstances obtain his production costs plus a profit for that produce. I am not prepared to say that, the hon. member cannot say it either, nor will the Leader of the Opposition be prepared to say it. It is the most impossible promise any Minister or any government could make. Within the context of production it will be the duty of any government such as this one to try and obtain, with the marketing of that product, the best price on that market by means of control measures. Arising out of the statement which the hon. member made in respect of the assurance of production costs, I now want to ask the hon. member a simple question. As far as I am aware the prickly pear is the plant which grows best in the Karoo, and it sometimes serves a useful purpose. Now will any government, because this is the best produce to grow there, guarantee the farmer his production costs plus a profit when he wants to sell prickly pears? This statement I am now making is a ridiculous one, but it applies to any product if there is no market where one can sell it. In regard to the question of prices the hon. member for Newton Park quoted certain figures. With those the hon. member tried to prove that the drought conditions and the position in which agriculture finds itself at the moment is not in fact owing to the drought conditions, but is the result of the price policy being followed by the Government. He quoted certain of last year’s figures to demonstrate that the unit price of certain products had been lower last year than in the previous year. With the figures the hon. member tried to prove that curbs are being imposed on the farmers by this Government and that they are worse off.

I pointed out the dilemma of the farmer. The decreasing producer’s price and the increasing production costs.

The hon. member cannot calculate the farmer’s income solely on the basis of a producer’s price. During the same year to which the hon. member referred, when the producer’s price was lower than the previous year, the overall income of the farmer in one industry only, i.e. the mealie industry, was R175 million more than in the previous year. The same number of morgen of land had then been planted. It is not correct therefore to hold up a unit price in agriculture as the price basis which should be the barometer indicating whether the farmers are having a hard time or whether things are going well. That is not the barometer. The farmers’ income is determined to a greater extent by crop circumstances and the production per morgen, and that is why in agriculture things are quite different than in industry, say. In industry unit production can be determined according to the demand, but in agriculture where the unit production varies from year to year, this cannot be done.

This is in fact a problem which we are now experiencing during the drought, It is not because our prices are not good enough, it is for the very reason that our unit production has decreased owing to the drought, also because of the costs incurred in combating it. The total production has decreased and even if the unit price had increased, it would have done nothing to remedy the matter. If the hon. member had received two or three cents per pound more for his wool, but had been unable to produce any wool, it would not have made any difference to him. I am merely mentioning this to indicate that hon. members, when they offer solutions of this kind, are to a large extent theorizing. With their theorizing they are accusing the Government of doing nothing about this matter. I shall still come to that.

The hon. member for East London (City) stated that the subsidies and loans for fodder were landing the farmers in even greater difficulties. Nobody denies this. Nobody denies that if it never rains in South Africa again and these people have to pay these loans, they would be worse off than they would have been if they had not incurred these loans. This assistance and these loans are not granted on the assumption that we will not have rains during the next few years. Nobody could have predicted that the present drought would prevail for such a long time. We must remember that we are not dealing here with a situation which always remains static, but with fluctuating situations. During this prolonged drought we have been experiencing there were occasional good years. I just want to mention a few figures as an example. We introduced the veld reclamation and withdrawal scheme in those very parts where the veld had deteriorated, and did so in spite of the accusation levelled by the hon. member to the ffect that we were doing nothing about this.

I want you to introduce it in the Karoo as well.

I shall furnish the hon. member with the figures. This scheme was introduced on 1st September, 1966, on 32 million morgen of land in the Transvaal, the Northern Cape and the North West Cape. Now hon. members must remember these figures. The compensation for that was R8 per large stock unit per year. In reality it amounted to R16 per year, because after two years the farmer could make full use of the veld which had been rehabilitated. In the Transvaal 911 participated in this scheme; in the Free State 142 and in the Karoo 120. It was possible to withdraw a third of this 32 million morgen, i.e. more than 10 million morgen. A total of 1.15 per cent of this 32 million morgen could be reutilized, that is to say less than 10 per cent of that land which had been withdrawn from the scheme. In the Transvaal there were 911 applications in 1966 to join this scheme, but in the first year after it had rained, the total number of applications decreased to 700. While the total number of applications in the Karoo had been 180, this number increased to 333, since the drought there persisted. These figures indicate that we are not only dealing with schemes and measures which have to be applied, but also with individuals. We are dealing with people who themselves decide whether they want to participate in such schemes. These are people who are also influenced by conditions in agriculture. We are now going to expand this scheme. We are going to extend this scheme to cover the entire Karoo, as big as it is, because with the drought conditions there have now become worse. Apart from the areas to which I have just referred, we are also going to extend the scheme to Graaff Reinet, Aberdeen, Pearston, Somerset East, Cradock the Tarka Conservation Area, Jansenville, Murraysburg, Steytlerville, Victoria West and the remaining sections of Carnarvon, Fraserburg, Beaufort West and Prince Albert which were not previously included.

I think Walmer should also be included.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that we should include Walmer as well, but I do not know whether the hon. member for Walmer would agree with that. I want to say again that I am convinced that our people will now want to avail themselves of this scheme as a result of the exceptional drought conditions. I am equally convinced that if we have good rains next year, most of them will not make further use of the scheme.

The hon. member referred to the decrease in the number of people in our platteland. Hon. members will remember that we received the report from the commission. We tried to incorporate a means of encouraging people to look after their soil and to conserve it in the auxiliary measures to which I referred. The hon. member also referred to the auxiliary measures we included in the Soil Conservation Act. Now he is accusing us of having made no progress with these, but the hon. member himself mentioned the figures for the approved works which have not been carried out. The reason for the approved works not being carried out, was not that they were not approved, but because for various reasons the farmers omitted to do so. One of the reasons which is at the moment perhaps the most obvious one, is the drought we are experiencing. Perhaps the farmer was not economically in a position to do so. If someone wants to accuse the Government of not doing these things, he must also agree that we must compel the farmer to take certain steps. Provision for subsidies exists, and they can get a subsidy for fencing and stock watering-places.

But soil conservation does not merely consist of the construction of fences and the building of contours. These are in reality the last steps one takes in respect of soil conservation. The basic step is the biological conservation of the soil. The drought has shown us that stock-keeping in most parts of our country is of such a nature that it is adjusted to optimum conditions. When we do not have those optimum conditions we are faced with the problem that the stock-keeping is too high and that the veld deteriorates. We must take steps to combat those conditions, and we are in fact going to do so in terms of our Soil Conservation Act.

We are also going to take steps in terms of the Soil Conservation Act to enforce certain measures upon the farmers, where these were previously of a voluntary nature. Legislation in this connection will subsequently be introduced. And consequently I want hon. members to be consistent in their attitude to-day. They must then support the Government in its positive attempts to make soil conservation in South Africa compulsory as far as those people are concerned who are not prepared to adopt these measures. I see the hon. member for Newton Park is already sitting looking at me, because he is thinking of the fine propaganda he is going to make of what I have now said. He is going to tell the farmers in his area that they are going to be compelled to take soil conservation steps and he is going to tell them how this Government is now becoming a dictatorial government which wants to compel people to do things. Mr. Speaker, I can even see on his face how much he is already enjoying himself. That hon. member is going to enjoy himself very much when he sees the farmers and tells them that the Government is going to tell them how they must farm. I can see how delighted he already is.

I now want to come to the drought as such. As a result of the prolonged drought which we are at present experiencing there is not one person in South Africa who will deny that our farmers to-day are in an unenviable position. Everybody is aware of the tremendous problems we have to deal with in order to keep stock alive, and the allied problem of the deterioration of our soil. All of us are aware of the problems we have with the provision of water for our animals in the platteland. All of us are aware of the problems facing our co-operative societies situated in the production areas. In addition there is still the problem co-operative societies and other bodies are having with financing. At the same time our farmers have problems with their own financing. These are no new problems. All of us are aware of them. As these conditions present themselves, steps are taken to deal with them. I do not want to burden the House with figures in this regard. I can mention thousands of figures in respect of what has already been done in the form of subsidies for fodder, loans, rebates on railages, food supplies to farmers, fencing and camps and the establishment of fodder banks. The hon. member referred to how it was made possible for the S.A. Agricultural Union last year to accumulate fodder so that it could be supplied to the farmers with the Government’s guarantee in this regard. Then the hon. member states that nothing is being done. All these things are being done. But in spite of all these auxiliary measures, the drought has assumed these proportions. I do not think the hon. members could have predicted the extent of the drought last year or the year before last. All of us hoped that conditions would change. Because agriculture is such an important industry, and because it is one of our basic industries, and has to accomplish all the things hon. members referred to, particularly the provision of food to our country, it is obvious that the Government will from time to time have to add special measures to those which already exist. I shall not at this juncture mention all the existing measures which are aimed at keeping farmers in the platteland and enabling them to continue producing. This is obviously the case because it is such a fundamental industry, quite apart from the human material we have to deal with. The steps which are taken, however, cannot be summed up in one word. One cannot say that the Government should simply do this, that or the other. The simplest or most economical method of keeping our people on the platteland to-day would perhaps be to give every farmer a few thousand rand per year so that he can live on that. But then he must withdraw his stock completely from the land. That, of course, is totally unpractical. It would be as theoretic as many of the things the hon. member for Newton Park suggested. Whatever one does, the link between the farmer and his soil must be retained. The link between the farmer and his financial institutions must also be retained as far as possible. We do not want to make the farmer a slave or a tenant farmer of the State. The requests the hon. member addressed here were not even necessary. It is obvious that if the State has introduced auxiliary measures by means of loans in order to enable people to purchase fodder for their animals, the Government will not call in those loans immediately. The Government will not say to the farmer that if the loan is granted for a year it must be paid back at the end of that year if conditions are such that the Government knows that the farmer is unable to do so. Why did the Government lend that assistance in the first place? I do not even think it is necessary for me as Minister to give the farmers outside the assurance that if, owing to circumstances they cannot pay back the loans, the Government will not force them to pay back those loans. Why was the original assistance offered them? Methods will then be applied to enable them to pay their debts one day when they are able to do so. All the auxiliary schemes we introduced, those in the wool industry, in our co-operatives for providing their members with production credits, the scheme of agricultural credit, have one basis, i.e. that the debt can be paid over a longer term, and if circumstances change, we can extend the term. That is the whole basis of all our auxiliary schemes. It is not even necessary for me to give an assurance in this regard.

What about the rates of interest?

All the loans are made available by the State at 5 per cent interest. It is a very difficult situation, and the hon. member opposite is fully aware that a general subsidy on the rate of interest is not such an easy thing. It is not only the farmer in difficult circumstances, the man experiencing drought conditions who receives the subsidy, but also the farmer who has loans at much higher land prices and under much better conditions. It is therefore not so easy to say that we are going to subsidize the farmers’ rates of interest on their mortgage liabilities or anything else for that matter. Last year the Government decreased the rate of interest by a half per cent and it can happen that it will be done again in future.

I think the farmers of South Africa have had sufficient experience of this Government’s actions precisely at a time when they were experiencing these particularly difficult conditions. Hon. members opposite referred to the Government’s actions and the policy which is being followed, and they then selected the past few years during which we have been experiencing droughts, and stated that these were the conditions which had arisen because this Government had no long-term policy in respect of prices, etc. They then uttered grave warnings about future production of foodstuffs and stated that owing to the Government’s short-sightedness there would not be enough farmers to produce the necessary food. Over the past 20 years, during which this side has been in power, our grain and our fruit production in all their ramifications have always increased in spite of the droughts and other unfavourable conditions. Notwithstanding the droughts the amount of meat being offered at our markets has always increased. The total production of the agricultural sector has increased tremendously. Now I want to ask the hon. member this question: If we had had good rains this year, at what level would our production have stood? We can consider maize, meat, whatever we want to. Even in the dry years there was for a long time an overabundant supply of mutton on the market.

There is something else I want to refer to, which is this. On each occasion it is alleged by that side that our soil is deteriorating and that soil conservation measures are not being applied. Although the Government is not the owner of the land, the Government is accused of not doing enough in respect of soil conservation. But this reproach is also being levelled at a great many of our farmers, i.e. by implying that a large part of our country is being washed away. I want to concede that there is room for very great improvement as far as soil conservation is concerned but, added to that I want to say that a very large number of our farmers, have, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances in which they found themselves, shown us during the past few years that with the aid of the correct farming methods—and this is after all the basis of soil conservation—we have been able to increase our agricultural production tremendously, and for that I want to take my hat off to our farmers. I think it is time somebody expressed appreciation of our farmers, because they are people who have, to a very large extent, and often under difficult circumstances brought large tracts of our country which were previously unproductive under production to-day. We need not go very far in order to see what I mean. We can merely look at areas here in the Western Province, in the South Western Districts. We can go and take a look at large parts of the Free State. Unfortunately the Karoo is experiencing very difficult drought conditions. But hon. members can drive around and see the well-conserved farms we have in many parts of the country. Nevertheless it is being said that we have done nothing; that we are degenerating. Let us view these things in the correct perspective as well.

I say again that I am not going to burden hon. members this afternoon with details of the various schemes introduced by the Government; I am not going to burden hon. members with the details of the millions of rand which have been spent in this regard. I do not want to mention the precise figures because I am afraid that if the people know what is really being spent on the agricultural sector in South Africa, a feeling of antipathy towards agriculture could arise. At this stage we have a great deal of sympathy for the agricultural sector because it is dry, but it will not always be dry. If the people were to know what is actually being spent on agriculture, I wonder whether we would not be strongly criticized for doing too much for our agricultural industry.

For more than one-third of the total population?

The hon. member is referring to 30 per cent of the total population …

But you are not ashamed of what the Government is doing for the Bantu?

The hon. member is talking about 30 per cent of the total population.

There you have it. Listen to what that hon. member is saying.

You do not understand Afrikaans.

I am not saying that we must not render assistance. I am saying that because it is a fundamental industry, we must render assistance, for we must keep our agriculture sound. But hon. members opposite want to create the impression that absolutely nothing is being done for the South African agriculture, and that is a totally false and wrong impression. What is worst of all is that the hon. members know that it is so. It is not that they do not know, because all they need do is look up the reports of the Department or the estimates of Parliament in order to see what the position is.

You are not being reasonable now; we are expressing our gratitude for what is being done.

I would just like to return for a moment to the hon. member for East London (City). On different occasions now he has asked for a fodder bank to be established in South Africa in order to supply fodder in times of drought. A while back the hon. member mentioned all kinds of things, but I want to tell him that during the past few years lucerne has not been exported from South Africa. No ground-nut meal or hay was destroyed. The people producing that stuff utilize it fully themselves. At this stage we are very fortunate in that there is not as yet a shortage of mealies—I do not know what crop is going to be produced. Surely the hon. member himself knows that if a fodder bank is established it will have to be established in a time of reasonable prosperity, I am talking now about a time of good rains. After all, I know what that fodder is going to cost when the farmers need it, and no farmer is going to take it if he does not need it. It will make the industry even more uneconomic if we have to store cheap hay for three, four, five or six years so that it can be available when we experience this kind of drought disaster, perhaps once in 30 years, or less. That is why a fodder bank in South Africa, in the sense in which the hon. member referred to it, is a totally uneconomic proposition.

I never said that we must store hay.

What then? We are storing mealies in any case. What else is there? We already have a fodder bank for mealies. The hon. member referred just now to the groundnut hay which is going to waste, and the chaff in the Western Province which is going to waste. After all, the hon. member did refer to that, what else did he refer to then, or did I misunderstand him completely?

I meant it should be processed and then stored.

I just want to point out that circumstances determine this matter. They also determine the price. A few years ago we also experienced droughts, have, oats and chaff were sold in the Western Province at 36, 37 and 40 cents per bale. The people stored the stuff, and then it rained and a week later they could not sell it for 10 cents. They were then left with great heaps of chaff and hay which they had accumulated. Economy determines this type of thing. It is not the Government’s task to purchase these products when there is a plentiful supply and store it in order to supply the country and the administration at tremendous expense in times of drought. I maintain that it is an impossible task.

Debate having continued for 2½ hours, motion and amendment lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Joint Matriculation Board was established by section 16 of Act No. 12 of 1916, in which the two most important functions of the Joint Matriculation Board were laid down, i.e. that it would, in the first place, conduct the matriculation examinations of various universities and that it would, in the second place, determine the conditions of exemption from the matriculation examination. During the course of years this Act has been amended on a number of occasions, but it was amended for the most part in respect of the constitution of the Joint Matriculation Board, inter alia, because more universities were included and obtained representation on the Joint Matriculation Board. These amendments were, inter alia, introduced by means of Act No. 30 of 1920, Act 29 of 1934, Act 21 of 1939, Act 3 of 1942, Act 61 of 1955 and Act 9 of 1960. However, the most important function, i.e. that of prescribing the conditions of exemption from the matriculation examination, subject to the approval of the Minister of National Education, remained in force. The requirements for admission to a university, with which the matriculant has to comply, have been observed since December, 1918, when the first examination was conducted in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1916. Subsequently the pass requirements for university admission were raised at a meeting of the Joint Matriculation Board in January, 1958 in Cape Town, despite opposition from various provincial educational heads. On that occasion I had a seat in the Joint Matriculation Board, and that is why I remember it. At the end of 1960 the provision to the effect that the average percentage which candidates had to attain for university admission should be raised from 40 per cent to 44.4 per cent came into effect. In general, the public speak of 45 per cent. It was only possible to effect this increase because the representatives of the universities had a majority vote on the Joint Matriculation Board. In fact, it is laid down in this way by Act 61 of 1955, section 15 (4), which states—

At that time it was believed in certain circles that the raising of the pass requirement for university admission, which came into operation towards the end of 1960, was intended to draw academically stronger candidates to the universities in order—as was said—to reduce the number of first-year failures at the universities. Well, at that time a great deal of discussion took place in regard to the large number of first-year failures at universities. I do not want to elaborate on the question of whether any success was achieved in this specific aim—if it was a specific aim. Even to-day there is still a great deal of discussion on the matter of first-year failures; in fact, the hon. the Minister of National Education appointed a commission of inquiry towards the end of last year with specific instructions to go into this matter as well. Before I elaborate further on my argument I want to emphasize that it is not my intention to advocate a lowering—with that I mean a horizontal lowering—of the pass requirement in regard to special subjects for university admission, which is controlled by the Joint Matriculation Board. I should like to ask that the hon. the Minister listen to my incidental plea in this regard.

Not long ago sporadic voices were raised and pleas were made to the effect that the pass requirement of the matriculation examination for admission to the university should be raised even further, to 50 per cent for example. On this occasion I want to ask the hon. the Minister to refrain from complying with that plea. My reason for doing so is principally that many pupils who find it difficult to comply with the present pass requirements for admission to the university because they are perhaps not so well equipped intellectually, nevertheless do well at university; and not only at university, but in later life as well. They do well precisely because they are bolstered by important personality traits such as perseverance, the ability to work hard, devotion to duty, purposefulness and ambition. When a raising of the matriculation standard—as controlled by the Joint Matriculation Board—is prescribed, it must be borne in mind that admission will as a result of that be refused to a certain grout? of students who can in fact be successful at universities. The spotlight and the criticism of public interest has, particularly in the past decade or two, shifted to a marked degree to the level of tertiary, that is to say, university education. In the past a university was a kind of isolated and unapproachable academic sanctum, and the general public were too modest to express an opinion on it, and very few people did in fact have the courage to express criticism. As far as this is concerned, this state of affairs has changed a great deal during the past few years. An increasing number of students have been admitted to our universities, and they have become more and more representative of our general public. In addition an increasing amount of interest in the efficiency of our tertiary education has arisen. Where universities a few decades ago were supported, maintained and controlled by a certain sector of society only, a significant change has now taken place. The community has by means of taxation acquired a say in the matter, because it is they who make the subsidies on the part of the State to the universities possible. In 1968 between 66 and 84 per cent, depending upon the size of the university, of the revenue of the university derived from the State, and in addition there was a favourable capital provision. Professor C. H. Rautenbach, rector of the University of Pretoria, and also chairman of the Advisory Education Council has termed this phenomenon of communal interest a democratisational process. He went on to say—

Mr. Speaker, the demands of the time are such that effective provision has to be made by means of university education for the present-day requirements, which are becoming increasingly heterogenous. Consequently it is necessary that a much larger percentage of the population should be given university training. I emphasize that the community is taking a greater interest because the community is, through its children, being represented at university to an ever-increasing extent. That is consequently why the public is displaying more interest than ever before in an aspect such as the admission requirements for a university.

Mr. Speaker, this motion which I am dealing with was also in part stimulated by public interest, which can in some cases be of a personal nature because it could involve a parent which had a young son or daughter who had been prejudiced by the restrictive admission requirements. An eminent, well-known person in educational circles, recently told me that as far as he was concerned the Joint Matriculation Board was an anachronism. But I do not agree with this, because the Joint Matriculation Board has nevertheless moved in the direction of making provision for changing requirements, and I want to mention a few examples here. As long ago as the mid-forties permission was granted to commercial schools to offer economy as an exemption subject instead of nature study and chemistry, which is a science subject and a requirement, and recently the Joint Matriculation Board also resolved to grant exemption under certain conditions to candidates in the Transvaal who had passed the normal matriculation examination, i.e. the present well-known B-stream. In addition the Board also decided to recognize, under specified conditions, the South African Technical Certificate for exemption purposes.

While to my mind the Joint Matriculation Board is moving in a positive and realistic direction, the progress it is making is nevertheless too slow. In respect of university admission in my opinion, the Joint Matriculation Board is clinging too desperately to the idea of the superiority of subjects such as science, mathematics and a third language, as against subjects like history, geography, book-keeping and commerce, to mention only a few. I know that in the past very long arguments were conducted in regard to the formative value of mathematics, Latin and science, for example, subjects which I myself took for my matric. But which subjects do in effect have more formative value than others? To my mind the formative value of subjects lies as much in the methods by means of which that subject is taught as in the subject itself. To my mind it is merely hypothetical to state that a science can have greater formative value than history, and even economy.

The present admission requirements to the university for a matriculant, as laid down by the Joint Matriculation Board, are the official languages, mathematics, or a third language, and a science subject. I think that these requirements were those which were laid down as long ago as the year 1918, and they still remain unchanged to-day. Sir, except for minor concessions, such as those which I have just mentioned, these basic requirements have remained. My question now is this: While individual differences between pupils are recognized and accepted—and this is educationally as well as psychologically correct and it is also regarded as a sound distinction—do the admission requirements make adequate provision for these individual differences? Where an individual does well in the so-called formative subjects which do in fact comply with the admission requirements, does he do well in them because he has a higher intelligence than that of another candidate, or does he do well in those subjects because he has an aptitude for or a particular interest in that subject of subjects? It is obvious that an individual will make much better progress in the subjects for which he has an aptitude and in which he displays an interest. If he is now compelled by restrictive requirement in respect of university admission as far as his choice of subjects is concerned, to choose subjects for which he has no aptitude and in which he may have no interest, then he is like the proverbial fish on dry land.

Mr. Speaker, the universities are offering an increasing number of subjects and courses to comply with the demands of the community. Last year for example the University of Pretoria, in its 11 faculties, offered so many directions of study that approximately 120 different degrees could be obtained. To-day even more courses of study and subjects have been added. I do not want to advocate that the university should throw open its doors, nor do I want to plead that the requirements for admission to a subject should be lowered horizontally, but since the universities are offering an increasing number of subjects and courses it is really essential that the entrance or the approach to the universities should be made somewhat wider, in other words, that the requirements should be expanded vertically to some extent. I do not think that this will in fact entail that a greater number of unqualified candidates will find themselves at university, but it will entail that candidates who have a particular potential for a specific direction or directions will be admitted to the universities, and that they will be granted the opportunity of developing to the full the potential they have at their disposal, so that they may subsequently serve our society. In this connection I should like to read a quotation from the report of an interview which was recently conducted with Professor Rautenbach, to whom I have just referred. On this occasion he had the following, inter alia, to say—

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to mention a few practical examples. To my mind it seems unnecessary that the student who selects B.Com. or B.A. (Economics) or even B.A. (Drama) as a course should in fact have a science subject in order to be admitted to university. In my opinion it is not necessary either that a person who wants to take B.A. (Languages) should have a science or mathematics in order to obtain admission. It also appears unnecessary to me that a pupil in an agricultural high school, for example in the Transvaal, who has already taken two official languages and who is studying an additional science subject, who in fact wants to study agricultural subjects such as agronomy and stock breeding, should in fact have a third language or even mathematics. Sir, a subject such as bookkeeping, and even perhaps some other subject, will possibly be of equally great practical value if such a person would perhaps like to take a B.A. degree in agriculture at the university.

Sir, the needs of our community in the technical, technological industrial and commercial directions have expanded tremendously during the last decade, and this requires tertiary training for people who in due course will have to take the lead in the various fields. I am asking again: Have the requirements of the Joint Matriculation Board for university admission kept pace with this?

In most overseas countries there is in fact a duplicating body which issues instructions in respect of requirements for admission to the university, but there are in fact countries such as Canada, for example, where there is no national body regulating university admission, and in this case the individual universities stipulate their admission requirements. Sir, I am not really supporting this course. The Joint Matriculation Board, as an umbrella body, does nevertheless fulfil an important task, particularly in that it guarantees a measure of uniformity in respect of control and admission to university. But as far as I could ascertain, with the little study that I was able to make of the subject, there are no other countries where the admission requirements are so strict as they are in our case. I would like to suggest that an investigation be instituted, if it is not already being done or has not already been done, into the possibilities of making university admission requirements more streamlined, so as to adjust them to the changing and more differentiated requirements of our society. In the first place this can possibly be done by making the present requirements less restrictive. Where we for example have mathematics or a third language and a science subject as requirement to-day, apart from the two official languages, I want to express the idea that only one of that third and fourth group of subjects should be necessary, i.e. only one subject out of the group mathematics or a third language and a science subject. Otherwise there is of course the possibility of basing admission on the directions of study of the various courses. What I mean here for example is a scientific direction; I am talking about a social science direction, an agricultural or perhaps a commercial direction. The university then lays down specific admission requirements for the specific direction of study, and the Joint Matriculation Board can continue to fulfil a function by preventing the admission requirements for the same direction of study at the various universities from becoming too divergent.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, arising out of my motion on the Order Paper, I want to recommend that differentiated requirements for admission to specific directions of study at universities should be investigated as a principle, and that the subject requirements for admission to the university should then be adjusted according to that principle.

I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort has presented his case remarkably well. Whether one accepts his proposal or not is another matter, but I think the manner in which he has put forward his case deserves the thanks of this House. I do not think he could have expressed it in a better manner. We know what his difficulty is. It is the requirement of mathematics or the third language. He feels that that is too difficult, or unsuitable for some people.

Now, when we speak about matriculation, what do we mean? Matriculation means the entry of a student’s name on a list for admission to a university. It is as simple as that. In South Africa we have given another meaning to matriculation in ordinary conversation. We have sometimes confused it with an ordinary school certificate, the final examination in a secondary school. But matriculation itself means admission to a university. Therefore I think it is elementary to say that whatever we discuss and whatever we propose, the final say in deciding who is to be admitted to a university must lie in the hands of the university people themselves; They are the people to say who should be there. We on both sides of this House speak of university autonomy and We also speak of academic freedom. They have a great deal in common, and there are usually three Or four elements. One is that the university should decide who shall teach; secondly, what they shall teach; and, thirdly, whom they shall teach, who is to be admitted to that university for instruction. Whatever method we discuss and whatever we decide, it is clearly understood, I think, that the university must eventually have the final say. And the hon. the Minister in his legislation agrees with that, because on his Matriculation Board the universities have the majority vote; and should there be division of opinion amongst the universities then it is possible that new ideas could be accepted and considered. Now, besides the universities deciding on admission to their institutions, there are the institutions who supply the students, namely the schools. Therefore the secondary schools, the schoolmasters, should have representation on this board which decides on admission; and the hon. the Minister in his legislation makes provision for that representation. They are the second partner.

Then there is a third partner. In addition to the schools there is the representation of the various education authorities. The directors of education of the four provinces nominate men to represent them. But there is another partner, and that is the professional bodies: there are more than one of these professional bodies. You have, for example, the medical profession. The medical profession says that although you may be admitted to a university, if you are going to take a course in medicine, in addition to the course you take for matriculation, they will insist on certain subjects being taken in the medical course. And our legal men say that in the training of a lawyer you can take the two languages and you can take mathematics and a third language, but you must take Latin. We have heard debates in this House by lawyers who say that Latin is not really necessary. But the point is this, that if the man says he is matriculated and he now wishes to train as a lawyer, then, in addition to satisfying the requirements of the university, he has to satisfy the requirements of the legal profession. Take accountancy. We may say that a third language or mathematics is not necessary, but the accountants will say that for their profession you must have mathematics. So, these are the various bodies which are concerned with deciding who will be admitted to a university. I have some sympathy with the views of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. We have all gone through that experience of the admission of primary school students to secondary schools, and hon. members who are members of the teaching profession will remember that several years ago we had promotion at what they called overseas “11 plus”. In our country it was “12 plus”. That is to say, in the child’s thirteenth year we decided whether he should go to high school or to a vocational school or to some other school, but there has been a reaction against that. There has been a reaction overseas. They find there is a type of student who is called a “late developer”, a lad who at the age of 13 was not an outstanding student. In fact, some of the great scientists of the world are in that category. [Interjections.] There are men, you will find, in that category who in the primary school stage do not show the promise they may show four or five years later. I have actually had such cases in my experience and I am sure the members of my profession have also had such cases. Therefore we have to be careful in regard to this question of admission and there is that to be said for the suggestion of the hon. member for Koedoespoort. But the tendency overseas in regard to university education is in the opposite direction to what he advocates. Instead of the ordinary matriculation examination to-day, they have introduced in England—I do not say in Britain, because we must always be clear in our minds that the English system of education is not the Scottish system; they are two quite different systems. The Scottish system is one of the oldest and best in the world. The two great systems of education, I am speaking now of 150 years ago, were those of Prussia and Scotland. But I am speaking now of the English system. Overseas they have introduced these examinations. They say, first of all, there is to be a school certificate at what they call the O level, the ordinary level—O for ordinary. Going into the matter when I was over there, I came to the conclusion that it was something corresponding to our Std. 9. After that O level, they have an A level, and before a student can be admitted to a university he has to have at least two A levels, two subjects he has taken on the higher level. There is nothing new in that. When I took matriculation there were subjects one could take which they called “higher alternative papers”, after one matriculated, if one matriculated young. We also had that system in South Africa, in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal one could take mathematics and one could take higher mathematics. In other words, we anticipated this movement overseas, of the A level student. If the student is going to be a science student, you would expect him to take two subjects, mathematics and physical science, on the A level, and if he is going to be a classics scholar he is expected to take English or Latin and perhaps a modern language or Greek on the A level. They have obtained that type of student through introducing this system. I suppose the Minister’s staff have gone into that and I am sure they have all that information.

Now we come to this motion. What shall we say about the terms of the motion moved by the hon. member for Koedoespoort? Let us look at it. It says that this House “requests the Government to consider the advisability of investigating the function of the Joint Matriculation Board”. Well, I assume the hon. the Minister is always investigating it. He has an education staff and he always has the examination under review. Then the motion continues “specifically in respect of formulating the qualification for admission to universities, in order to provide for needs arising from changed circumstances”. Now, what does the hon. the Minister do if he has to carry out his system? He says: “I have a matriculation board.” And that matriculation board is appointed in the manner which he prescribes. Now, why does the hon. member come along at this early stage of the Session to ask the Minister to do something about this when last year we had a Bill before us which became law? There were four clauses in that Bill. Of the four clauses we of the United Party accepted three immediately. One clause dealt with the Matriculation Board. About the fourth clause we were a little hesitant, but the hon. member for Houghton was not prepared to accept clause 4. However, we accepted it because the Minister gave us certain assurances. But that did not arise in this context that we are discussing to-day. What does arise is that the first clause in the Bill of last year dealt with the constitution of the Matriculation Board. We expressed our appreciation of what the Minister had done, but there was not a sound from the other side. That was their opportunity. Why did you not climb in then? Why did you not say to the Minister that you did not like his clause? There was the opportunity. We could have discussed this matter then.

I have nothing against the constitution of the board.

But there was the opportunity. We could have discussed this then. We could then have said that this constitution of the Matriculation Board is not the constitution we would like. How are we going to change the constitution of the board now? I think the Minister has done what is necessary. He says: I am going to have a board constituted in this manner. As an intelligent and wise Minister he does not say that this man, or that one, must go on the board, except for one or two members of his own Department. He says to the universities: Give me the men. He says to the schools: Give me your men, and when you have these men you can advise me and tell me what to do. But I do not expect the Minister to appoint a commission to go into the work of the Matriculation Board. If he were to do that, naturally it would be a university inquiry. That brings me back to my first point.

The meaning of matriculation is admission to the university. I have some sympathy with a boy who cannot do mathematics. I do not say such people are mentally deficient or anything of that kind. There are some very brilliant people who cannot do mathematics. A lecturer said the other day he could not understand music, and his sisters could not understand mathematics. There are people who, however intelligent they are, do not understand some things. But surely the elementary mathematics they have to pass is not too high. They are not asking for higher mathematics. I would say that if they are going to take science at university they should have higher mathematics. But there is another thing about this mathematics. In the world to-day students are not taking mathematics and science, especially physical science. Why not? They are looking for easier options. They are looking for easier subjects. I do not want to mention all those subjects, such as politics, philosophy, psychology and sociology. But the professions say to-day they do not want these subjects. The hard-headed accountant says he wants a fellow who knows mathematics, and the medical profession says they want mathematics and physics for the modern tendency in medical research. When you come to the legal profession we find they cannot make up their minds whether they want Latin or not.

After much discussion they decided to go to a higher court and discuss it there. The Chief-Justice of the Republic said: “You must have Latin.” I feel that this discussion has achieved its purpose, because the hon. member for Koedoespoort has brought to the attention of the Minister the fact that there are people who are not at ease about the present requirements of the Matriculation Board. I am sure he will keep that in mind and communicate it to the members of this board. I am not in favour of a university prescribing its own entrance examinations. I prefer the board, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort does. But there are universities overseas who have their own entrance examination. They say: “Perhaps you passed that matriculation entrance exam, but that is not good enough for us.”

I cannot move an amendment to the motion. I think this discussion has achieved what we desire. I cannot move an amendment to say that I have confidence in the Minister, because I have not! [Laughter.] But should there not be an amendment to the effect that while there seems to be a lack of confidence on the part of the Minister’s own supporters in the House, perhaps something could be done about it?

I think we have said enough about this matter. I do not think we need a great deal of discussion. As far as I am concerned, the old section 15 of the 1955 Act, was restated by the Minister as recently as last year. I do not think I can make any suggestion to change it at this early stage, but should the hon. the Minister wish to have an investigation, of course he will ask his own staff about it. He can do that. He has a very big staff, much too big I think. We have complained about it, but still he has some brilliant men there. These men can assist him. It is our view on this side of the House that a special inquiry at this stage is not necessary.

Mr. Speaker, we know the hon. member for Kensington as a respected member of this House who is not afraid to state his case. The hon. member said that he did not actually have confidence in the Minister, but he nevertheless does nothing about it. I now wonder whether he was not simply joking, because there was some degree of laughter accompanying his remark, or else the hon. member should rather have said what they really think of the motion of the hon. member for Koedoespoort.

I shall not speak for long. Neither shall I now specifically react to certain other points which the hon. member for Kensington made. My view will be apparent from a few ideas which I also want to add in connection with this matter. I am convinced that the question of admission to universities and the requirements imposed upon prospective students, do not centre around those requirements of the two languages, a science, mathematics and/or a third language. There are many other factors which go hand in hand with this matter. In individual studies, in conferences which were held, this also appeared to be the case. Let me simply refer you here to the discussion which was held in Bloemfontein in 1967 about an aspect of this problem, namely the high failure rate at our universities. A conference was held by the Committee of University Principals. Last year when a Select Committee was appointed in connection with the Bill on teacher training, there was a great deal of talk, and a great deal was written, about this matter. The hon. member for Koedoespoort spoke about certain matters which Prof. Rautenbach, Rector of the University of Pretoria, raised recently. I also have a clipping about that. It indicates that these matters need and deserve constant attention. But we must not expect that when we have finished discussing the matter today, we can in that way remove it from our agenda. The question of admission to universities is a part of the dynamic education process. Even if we were to find a solution this year or next year, we would later have to discuss the matter again, because we would continually have to make adjustments as circumstances and the changing times require it of us.

The mover of the motion indicated the manner in which the Joint Matriculation Board is composed and how this body functions. I think that one may, to put it simply and in basic terms, base the procedures and methods of this body on two principles, when it comes to admission to universities: the first is that for the selection of students who want to be admitted to a university, a high school examination is set which we know as the matriculation examination. That is then the criterion which must determine whether a student has the ability and can; do well enough to make progress at a university. The second criterion is that a pattern of subject choices will determine whether that student will make good progress and make his mark at the university. It briefly boils down to this: choose certain subjects and write the prescribed examination; then the road will be open for you to enroll at the university as a student. But now one may ask, how reliable are these criteria, such as an examination and a pattern of subject choices which are applied? Will they prove completely successful in practice? In respect of the first criterion a study was made which indicates that 50 per cent of our first year students gained first class matriculation examination passes, but that 90 per cent of them, a mere nine months after this achievement, claimed that as far as they were concerned that examination was no proper introduction to or prediction of university training. As far as the second criterion is concerned, research has also indicated that there is little or no correlation and little or no relationship between the pattern of subjects which are chosen and the success which students achieve at university. We are now not talking about the value of mathematics for a specific field such as engineering. I am stating the case in general terms. It therefore appears as if these instruments of measurement which we are using are inefficient, as if they are ineffective for the times in which we are living. But I think that we must apply another criterion; then we shall perhaps come nearer to an answer. We must simply ask ourselves: are we satisfied that the students who are selected for admission to universities according to the existing methods, procedures and criteria, are achieving the measure of success which is expected of them, and are potentially good students not possibly being excluded? When we now come to the answering of this question, counter-questions also arise. We then come to the problem of the failure rate. How many of these students, selected along these lines, pass at university? How many of them eventually simply throw in the towel? To put it simply, if mathematics or a third language is the requirement, from how many of the students is a university career not perhaps withheld? I believe that everyone who has the capability should have the opportunity of thoroughly putting those capabilities to the test.

If we now come to this question; if we ask whether it does in fact produce the results we should like to have, then we see that this problem has wide ramifications. I am now going to mention a few matters to hon. members. On close examination the following matters are immediately implicated in the question of admission to universities: the universities complain about the standard of the high school pupils which are sent on to them. The universities state that they are often emotionally and socially not quite mature enough. I am not going to go into the matter any further; I am merely mentioning it. In the second place, are the examinations which are at present being conducted, these essay-type tests which are still encountered in certain subjects, really the best criterion by which to test whether a man has a knowledge of a subject or not, and apart from the knowledge, whether a man is properly prepared for a specific field of study? In the third place, I want to emphasize the large gap between the high school and the university. This struggle is not a problem unique to this day and age alone. Even prior to 338 B.C. the University of Athens—I say this in parentheses because one cannot actually call it a university—set itself the task, strangely enough, of trying to reduce the gap between the ordinary school, if one may call it that, and the university of that time. This is something which has already been discussed for many centuries.

The question of an additional school year, which must be introduced between the termination of the high school career and the commencement of the university career, now crops up. There are reasons why I do not support this procedure. Research has also indicated that the failure rate for first-year students does not really decrease as a result of the introduction of an additional school year. Specific subject choices are prescribed and these “disciplines”, as I should like to call them, are laid down. I may perhaps be using a poor example now, but I obtained my university degree and also did further postgraduate study although I had neither mathematics nor a third language in matric. I was fortunate enough to obtain provisional exemption from the matriculation examination with the other subjects which I took at school. As I have said, it is perhaps not a good example, but it nevertheless does prove that a person’s success at university does not depend on a specific choice of subjects, because I even obtained distinctions in subjects at university, and I do not want to boast when I say so. I also know another person who obtained provisional admission to the university with a conditional certificate of exemption to read for the degree of B.Econ. at the University of Pretoria. He passed his first-year subjects and again a conditional certificate of exemption was given to him. In this manner he passed the second and third-year subjects, but the degree could not be conferred upon him before he could prove a satisfactory matriculation standard for mathematics for German. He then enrolled at a correspondence college, sat for the mathematics examination, and in the following year the degree of B.Econ. was conferred upon him. That is again a proof that that man’s choice of subjects had nothing to do with his progress at university.

Another very important matter is the scant attention given especially to personality characteristics in the evaluation of a future university student. Personality characteristics are often the specific guarantee of the success one is going to achieve in the field one chooses.

I then also want to mention another additional factor. And that is the reasonably strong discipline to which high school pupils are subjected. When the student subsequently comes to university he obtains a great measure of freedom and he can act reasonably independently. In this way I could continue, but I mention all these things to indicate to you that the question of admission to universities is linked to another large group of factors. I also do not believe that as far as the admission to universities is concerned, South Africa is quite keeping pace with the rest of the world. I think that our criteria will have to be revised. I have mentioned these things to indicate as well that admission to universities is in the long run concerned with the whole educational progress, which begins in the primary school, carries on through the high school years to where the university’s doors are opened for students. This is perhaps the point where I differ from the two gentlemen who spoke before me. In saying this I am not trying to criticize what the Joint Matriculation Board has done. On the contrary, I greatly appreciate the work which the people have done. My honest opinion is, however, that if the admission to universities is aligned with the whole educational process, the body which eventually deals with the admission to universities and which lays down the requirements, is too distant from organized education as a whole. I feel that this body should cement closer ties with those who deal with the educational process up to the university level, whence it should be continued with. I therefore feel that the body which must lay down the requirements for university admission, should come under the body which the hon. the Minister established in 1962, i.e. the National Advisory Education Council. Are they not preferably the people who should eventually determine what requirements must be laid down for admission to universities?

Then, in closing, I want to mention my second idea. And that is that the subjects for admission must depend upon the specific field of study. One must not lay down general requirements, regardless of whether the student wants to become a doctor, teacher, lawyer or whatever. One must let the field of study be the decisive factor and in some cases one must leave it to the specific faculty to determine what is required from those who want to study in that specific field or faculty. Hence just these two thoughts. The persons who must eventually lay down the requirements for university admission are those persons connected with the National Advisory Education Council, and subsequently it must be left to the field of study and the faculties concerned at our universities. If we allow the process of education to remain linked in this way, we still always remain with the basic principle of the education of the individual as a whole, which must begin in the sub-standards and continue until, as a mature person, he comes to the university.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation that although only three speeches were made on this very important subject, their content was such that they did justice to the topic. I am also glad that we have been afforded the opportunity of stating our views on this very important matter. To begin with, I want to say that I believe, as you all do, that a cry should be raised in this country at the present time, to an even greater extent than in the past, that any student who has the ability should be afforded an opportunity of receiving a university education. If a student has the aptitude, ability and talent, he should not be precluded from receiving a university education because of technical reasons. In saying this I do not want to suggest that one should intervene from outside. I also want to endorse what the hon. member for Kensington said. There is a large measure of autonomy at the universities. There are the various professions which can lay down their requirements and I can find no fault with it if the medical, legal or whatever profession lays down its requirements for a knowledge of certain subjects in the case of students seeking admission to university. It is for those various professions to put the matter right in case a wrong choice of subjects is forced upon them. What is involved here, is therefore not interference in the affairs of universities and faculties, but a general principle. To link up with what hon. members have already said, I shall give a few examples presently of where I think this rigid, inflexible requirement of either mathematics or a third language has really become obsolete.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort also said that he had heard that it was the idea that the requirements for admission to universities should be raised even higher. I do not know what fertile brain has produced this idea. But I do want to say that I do not think it is an egg which will ever get beyond the laying stage. I cannot imagine that a chicken will ever hatch from it. We have nothing to do with the standard of the universities. I am satisfied that the universities of the Republic of South Africa maintain a very high standard and that we can unhesitatingly compare the standards attained at our universities with any other standards in the rest of the world. I have no doubt about that. I do not think that higher requirements and stricter rules should be laid down. I will oppose it with all the power at my disposal.

Many persons are to-day denied the right to enter a university campus as a result of restrictions imposed by the Joint Matriculation Board. I contend that since 1918, when the Board sat for the first time, until to-day exemptions and adjustments have often been made and note has been taken of the position as it has developed. I would not say that it has always been done very progressively, nor that it has always happened of its own accord, because at times strong pressure had to be exerted in order to achieve it. These are all accomplished facts. But the latest step which the Matriculation Board is taking and which is perhaps not so generally known, is as recent as last month of this year, i.e. January, 1969. I think it is a very great victory which has been achieved, especially when it is seen from the point of view of those people who so relentlessly opposed this so-called system of B stream children at the Transvaal secondary schools. It is well known there. At the moment I cannot disclose what concession has been made in this regard, because it is actually still in the incubation stage. I have no hesitation in declaring to-day that during the next few months something is even going to happen in the case of this group B stream children for whom the doors of the universities are closed. It is a very great privilege for me to announce here in this way that the Committee of Educational Heads, that is to say, all the Directors of Education, were in conference on this matter only yesterday, i.e. the 12th February, and that they still are. Yesterday the National Education Council and the Committee of Educational Heads sat in conference on this matter. The hon. member for Germiston pleaded here that the National Advisory Education Council should concern itself with this matter. This is, in fact, an instruction I gave to them so that they could investigate the entire matter purely from en educational point of view. This contact body, namely the executive committee of the Education Council, yesterday deliberated with the Educational Heads. I do not know what the nature of the deliberations was, but I expect to be notified in this connection within the foreseeable future. I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Koedoespoort and the other two speakers who supported this motion in expressing the hope that something good will come of these discussions. I shall give a few reasons presently why I think that something should happen.

I also want to hazard a prophecy now by saying what possibilities I think exist as far as opening the door wider is concerned. But I also want to make it clear that I do not want to be misunderstood. I do not want the doors to be thrown open so that standards are lowered. I do not want to see yet another machine created for turning out people who can write degrees behind their names, because in that case it might have been better if those people could not write those degrees behind their names. I do not want to do that. What I want is that the door should be opened a little wider so that the inflexibility of the strict requirement of mathematics or a third language may perhaps be eliminated. This should not be the beginning and the end as far as admission to a university is concerned. That should not be the position. I shall mention a few examples in this connection in a moment.

I first want to give the Joint Matriculation Board the credit it deserves. Only last year we progressed to such an extent that the Board recognized a large number of technical subjects for the purposes of admission to a university. We are very grateful for that. For example, they laid down the requirement that these should be on a par with the national technical school examination, i.e. the so called N.T.S. V. The Joint Matriculation Board placed a higher value on it. In this technical and technological age in which we are living one takes note of this with gratitude. But it has not gone far enough yet. The hon. member for Koedoespoort and the hon. member for Germiston indicated very clearly that the natural aptitude of a student has been disregarded up to now. In the secondary schools we have accepted as an educational principle no longer to let the accent fall on those old stereotyped subjects which older people were obliged to take in order to obtain a matriculation certificate. There were only six subjects and no choice. The hon. member for Kensington went all the way and made the grade, but he does not know how many fell by the wayside and how small the number of matriculants were who succeeded in battling through those six subjects. Whether one was able to grasp mathematics or an old language such as Latin was beside the point; one just had to go through with it, come what may. Most of them did not make it and fell by the wayside. Now we have accepted the more modern concept of differentiation in our educational system. We are not all the same. Hon. members only have to think of the large number of subjects which are being taught in our secondary schools to-day. The child’s aptitude is properly tested, but when he reaches standard 10 he is cut off. He comes up against a wall. He can only get over that wall by studying mathematics or a third language and a natural science. If he fails to do so, he is branded for the rest of his life as a person who did not qualify for admission to a university. Is this not a shocking injustice that is being done to those students? Is it not schocking to think that natural aptitude, in regard to which one has so little choice is being ignored? These are gifts which we receive from the Creator, but these gifts are disregarded. Because you do not have the same gifts which others have, you must hang around in the back rooms and the kitchens. I cannot express myself strongly enough about this. That is why I say the time is ripe for the Joint Matriculation Board to help unlock the door. With the hon. member for Kensington I admit that the universities should have the majority, we all admit that, because, after all, they are the ones who have to unlock the doors. When I am talking in this way I am actually pleading that they should help to unlock those doors. And that is not so impossible either. All that we are saying is that these compulsory combinations of subjects in order to gain university admission should be revised. That is putting it in very general terms. If the position is revised, it will be realized that this is really something which should receive attention.

I think the hon. member for Koedoespoort will agree with me that, since these matters are now being thoroughly investigated by our educational bodies and educational individuals, it is not necessary to ask the Government for a further investigation, especially not when the investigation has already progressed to far. However, I have a few proposals to make now and there may be many more. I only want to mention two now. One is—and the universities can give very serious consideration to this—that when a person’s aptitude lies in a certain direction, whether it be the humanities or the natural sciences, it should be a requirement that say three subjects should be taken on a higher level, subjects in which the student proposes to continue his studies at university, while the other subjects for which he has no special aptitude may be taken at a lower level. We should not have Afrikaans A and B and English A and B only; we should have these different grades in other subjects as well. In other words, more recognition should be given for certain subjects. If a person has an aptitude for the humanities he need only take the two languages and say history or some other subject relating to the humanities on a higher level and a B level course in mathematics or one of the natural sciences. That is one idea which I have in this connection. Then it will be possible to disperse with that strict requirement of a certain standard for certain subjects.

A second example has already been mentioned here, and this relates to our commercial high schools. The commercial high schools to-day teach the following subjects, for example, economics, commerce, accounting, commecial law, and the two official languages. These are all matriculation subjects. Now I ask this question: Are the people who take these subjects not better equipped to take a B.Comm. or a B.Econ. course at university than those students who took geography or biology or German and all those subjects for matric? But this group from the commercial high schools cannot gain admission to a university with these subjects. These are only a few ideas that I have.

Now I just want to add that it was with gratitude that I noted that there are individual universities that do apply this differentiation internally, and not through the Joint Matriculation Board. The hon. member for Germiston is one of the fortunate persons who went to a university that did not lay down these hard and fast rules. I may mention the example of my eldest son. If he went to a university to-day with this B level, then he would not be granted admission, and he is a professor at a university to-day. Can one realize the utter folly of this? For this internal differentiation I want to express my gratitude to the universities which are so far-sighted that they do not blindly follow a rule that has been laid down.

I think it is unnecessary to discuss this any further—we are so completely at one. However I should just like to say the following by way of summing up. Education is a living science. Education is the mother of all in a country. Without education and training of the citizens, both men and women, the entire national machinery will come to a standstill. There is, however, a very urgent and compelling requirement to be set to education and which it is the right of all of us to set to it, as parents and interested persons and citizens of the country. That is that it should continually take notes of changes occurring in life and in the world, locally and all over the world, and should adapt itself to these. If it does not do that, then it becomes stagnant, and then it no longer serves the purpose which it should. I want to repeat my general statement. I say every White child in this country of ours who has the ability should be afforded the opportunity of receiving tertiary training, in other words, of going to a university. But it requires careful planning to determine how it should be done, it requires thorough investigation, and where the investigation will have to be carried out continually—because we shall not be able to say, “We now know everything about the matter and this concludes it”—there are the educational institutions established by this Parliament. There is the Education Council, a statutory committee of the educational heads has been established, there are sub-committees constantly working on this matter, and it will mean that these bodies in collaboration with the Joint Matriculation Board can always show us the way ahead. I repeat, I expect a great change in this field in the coming months.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the explanation furnished by the hon. the Minister, I ask leave of this House to withdraw my motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.