I have exercised the discretion conferred on me by Standing Order No. 1 (Private Bills) and permitted the Bill, while retaining the form of a private measure, to be proceeded with as a public bill.

Before the House adjourned last night, I had mentioned that we on this side of the House had certain questions which we would like to put to the hon. the Minister, questions which might perhaps more suitably be directed to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. During the course of the debate the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration interjected to say that the powers to be vested in the Bantu Trust in terms of this Bill would and could only be exercised in Bantu townships established by the National Housing Commission within urban areas adjacent to scheduled or released areas in terms of the Bantu Trust Act of 1936. But is that in fact correct? Because if one looks at this Bill, although I have no objection, I believe that the Bill goes much further in regard to the powers conferred by the Bill and here I should like to refer to the long title in the fifth line of which it says that this Bill is to empower the S.A. Bantu Trust to take over the interests and liabilities of local authorities in certain housing schemes. The only restriction in regard to housing schemes relates to those financed by the National Housing Commission and controlled by the local authority. If we go further, clause 2, in line 26, says “the Trust may by agreement with any local authority take over the interest and liability of such local authority in respect of any such scheme”, these powers are very much wider than was indicated by the hon. the Minister, and they are very much wider than the restrictions suggested by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, namely that they could only be applied in townships adjacent to scheduled or released areas. I want to say that we on this side of the House accept wholeheartedly and support wholeheartedly the provision and the wider implication of what is laid down in this Bill, because first of all it recognizes that there is such a thing as a settled urban Bantu population in South Africa because it empowers the Trust now to take over the townships in urban local areas. Added to that is the second point, that when once the Trust takes control of such a township the Bantu is entitled to home ownership within that township area. We welcome that provision which has been introduced by the Government. It is a step in the right direction, although it has been taken with great reluctance.

One other point which I wish to emphasize in relation to this Bill and which I think is an important matter is that this Bill gives full recognition to the existence and to the rights of local authorities in that no steps can be taken under this Bill without the consent of the local authority. If the hon. the Minister would listen for one moment, I want to say that by recognizing the necessity for the consent of the local authority, he will avoid having to take action and taking decisions and having dissension and disagreement from organizations such as the United Municipal Executive. I think the hon. the Minister of Community Development should realize how important it is to safeguard and to provide for this consent when he sees what happened in Port Elizabeth last evening, when a resolution introduced at the U.M.E. meeting by none other than Mrs. Otto du Plessis and seconded by Mr. Boet Erasmus condemned this Minister’s action in respect of the Community Development Bill because he did not seek consent. Therefore we welcome it that the Minister in this instance is making himself subject to the consent of the local authority.

The fears of the hon. member for Green Point are completely unfounded. All I am doing here, is to protect the interests of the Housing Commission. We are giving this money to the local authority, and the Bantu Trust cannot take over those assets and liabilities without the permission of the Commission and of the Minister. I know the hon. member for Green Point has so much confidence in me that he will know that I shall not do anything wrong and that I shall not grant permission if there is anything amiss. So their fear that the Bantu Trust will take over in other Bantu residential areas is, of course, completely unfounded. But seeing that the hon. member supports the Bill so wholeheartedly, I do not want to say any more now and perhaps make him change his mind.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

We supported this Bill at the Second Reading, and accordingly we support all the various clauses as well. The first clause is an improvement on the old legislation. There is only one question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. It is a highly improbable state of affairs, but what would happen if, by coincidence, two vacancies should arise on this Board? Is any provision being made for such an eventuality? Does the hon. the Minister not think it would be desirable to insert a provision at some time or other—not necessarily now—in order to prescribe how many members of the Post Office Staff Board will constitute a quorum, if two vacancies should perhaps arise? That is all I want to say under this clause.

It may, of course, happen that two vacancies arise, but that is highly unlikely. Then it will, in effect, mean that for that period of time the Staff Board will not be able to function, as was the case last year after the death of one member. Then we just carried on with the business and made the appointment of the other member with retrospective effect to the date on which the member had died. It can present a problem, but it is highly unlikely that it will happen.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Sir, this is not a very important clause. It purports to change the name of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. to “Control Board”. I do not think personally that it is an improvement really. We are not going to oppose this particular clause, but I should like to know whether there really is a good reason for changing the name of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. to “Control Board”? In the minds of hon. members of this House and of the public outside the term “Control Board” is associated more with agricultural control boards such as the Maize Control Board, and so forth. I do not think that it really improves the status of the Board of Governors when they are given the same status, from the point of view of nomenclature, as, say, the Dried Bean Control Board or the Banana Control Board. I want to know why the board is now to be known as “Control Board”, and why they are to have a chief controller, I take it, instead of a chairman?

I think this is an unnecessary question. This is only an improvement in language. If you have a board of governors, then you have to refer to a member of the board as a governor. I think that control board is a much better designation, because now one can speak of a control board member or a board member. I feel that “control board” is a much better designation than “board of governors”.

Did the proposal come from the existing Board?

Yes.

I think it is only a question of nomenclature here. It is a question of a board of governors or a control board. The term “control board” seems to emphasize that this body will now exercise greater control over the policy of the Broadcasting Corporation. I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice that there is a feeling amongst English-speaking South Africans who listen in to the A programme that they are not receiving what they would regard as a fair deal, when they contrast the service in South Africa with the service in other English-speaking countries.

Order! That has nothing to do with this clause.

I am speaking on the subject of control, Sir.

The hon. member is now discussing policy, which is not covered by this clause.

However, I have made my point and I should like the hon. the Minister to bear that in mind.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 2:

I should like to know from the hon. the Minister, if he has the details, what the present remuneration of the chairman and the members of the board is.

No, I do not have the details.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I just want to know why it is proposed here to substitute “submitted to” for “read at”.

The minutes are voluminous at present and are in any case circulated in advance, as happens in the case of many bodies. Then you still have the provision that they specifically have to be read when the board meets, while they have already been circulated and can simply be submitted instead of being read.

Sir, I understand the point of view of the Minister, but in English is the correct expression in regard to minutes not normally that “the minutes are read”? And even if they are not actually read, they are “taken as read”. That is the normal expression in English and I do not see why the change should really be made.

Order! We are not dealing with the procedure at a meeting here.

Mr. Chairman, may I read to you what the amendment provides?

I know what the amendment provides, but I do not think we should take up the time of the Committee with it.

With respect, Sir, the subsection used to read: “The minutes of the meeting shall be read at”, and “submitted to” is now being substituted for “read at”. My contention is that this is not necessary; that the customary expression in English is “read”.

Order! I have been chairman many times, and I have never heard that interpretation.

Sir, I submit that it is not quite proper for you as Chairman to make remarks like that. It is not for the Chairman to decide, it is for the House to decide. The subsection at present reads that “the minutes of the meeting shall be read at”, and I submit that that is the usual way of doing it. I want to know from the Minister why he is now altering “read at” to “submitted to”.

The Minister did explain it. When I addressed my remark to the hon. member I was talking about the meaning of the word; I was not expressing an opinion as to whether it is a good thing or not. “read at” means “read at”.

Sir, do you say that “submitted to” is the same as “read at”?

No, it is not.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Sir, in clause 5 (b), the problem of relayed programmes over wires is dealt with. We know that many programmes in other countries—broadcast programmes, television programmes and so forth are being relayed over wires—and I wonder what the Minister had in mind in introducing this amendment. Where the S.A.B.C. will have the power to relay programmes over wires, I take it that the wires will be supplied by the Post Office. In that case, will the S.A.B.C. be paying the Post Office or will some other arrangement be made in that respect for payment for these services?

The provisions of the section as contained in the Act are not affected by this amendment at all. This amendment is only being introduced in order to bring about changes in language in section 12, and replaces the reference therein to the former Post Office Act, which has been repealed, by a reference to the existing Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

As regards clause 6 (b) the original subsection simply referred to the acquisition of “copyrights and performing rights”, and now the following words are being added, “and deal therewith and dispose of the same”. I take it that this means that the Corporation will then have the right to buy and sell in terms of copyright, otherwise what do the words “deal therewith and dispose of the same” mean? I would like to know from the hon. the Minister why there is no reference here to some sort of protection for the artists and authors concerned in terms of the Copyright Act?

In the Afrikaans text the more correct word “outeursregte” is being substituted for the word “kopieregte”, and the amendment provides that the Broadcasting Corporation may also dispose of and deal with copyrights and performing rights instead of only acquiring them. This is the normal practice for broadcasting organizations.

I would like to move the amendment standing in my name—

Sir, in his second reading speech, the hon. the Minister explained the reason why he wanted to give the S.A.B.C. the power to erect broadcasting stations not only in South Africa itself, a power which it has always had, but why it should now have the power, with his approval, to erect broadcasting stations, relay stations, buildings and so forth outside the borders of South Africa. We admit that there are certain instances where such a station, particularly a relay station, on, say, a high mountain range just outside the borders of South Africa, might be useful for improving the relay service and the ordinary broadcasting service of the S.A.B.C. But I maintain that this amendment which the Minister is now asking the Committee to consider goes much further. It is giving the S.A.B.C. the right, with the approval of the Minister—and that is some sort of safeguard —to erect or to acquire broadcasting or television stations or sub-stations anywhere in the rest of the world. Sir, that is a dangerous power. That is a power that I would not like to give to a body which is now becoming even more independent of Parliament than it has ever been in the past.

We have had some strange events which have not yet been completely clarified in regard to a broadcasting station which was erected in Malawi, where the S.A.B.C. was involved, and I do think that this is an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to give us further particulars as to what happened in that case. It appeared from the reply to one of my questions that he had no direct say in that matter. I would like to ask him whether that station was erected without his permission? Did he know about it; was his permission asked, and is this amendment changing the position to this extent that in future, should the S.A.B.C. do what it has been doing in Malawi, it will have to ask his permission? Or will the S.A.B.C. still have the right, as it apparently had in Malawi, to erect at least the building, if not the station itself, without his permission? You see, Sir, it is an unheard of thing for a corporation such as the S.A.B.C. actually to take over some of the functions of foreign aid normally exercised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs or by the Government itself. I cannot see any reason for allowing the S.A.B.C. to do a thing of this nature, which is going against the very spirit of parliamentary control. Sir, I do want to know more about these deals and what is contemplated. After all, if you give the S.A.B.C. the right to erect a broadcasting station wherever it wishes to do in the rest of the world, it can start its own pirate radio station off the coasts of some other friendly or unfriendly country. The possibilities are endless. That is why I do want this proviso in this particular clause so that Parliament can control what the S.A.B.C. is doing.

They can even start a “Radio Verkrampte”.

One never knows, Sir; there are all sorts of possibilities. There is some safeguard in that the hon. the Minister has to give his permission in this case. But I want to know this: If this amendment goes through and the Minister has given his permission for the erection of a radio station and I come to this House and ask the Minister whether he has given his permission, for what he has given it, what the details of the radio station are, what has been built and what it cost, will we have the same type of reply that we had five minutes ago when the hon. the Minister refused to reply and said that the matter concerned was an internal affair of the S.A.B.C.? Sir, it is essential that we hear more from the Minister about this. I regard this as a dangerous power which is being given to the S.A.B.C. and we on this side want to have none of it.

I am sorry, but I do not think that the hon. the Minister’s reply was very clear with regard to what he means by “deal therewith and dispose of the same”. How do you dispose of a copyright? I would be very interested to know how you dispose of it and how you sell it? The hon. the Minister talked about the right of sale. Well, if you sell a copyright, who gets the money, the Corporation or the artist concerned, and what is the basis of this whole transaction?

Mr. Chairman, I have very little experience of this matter and I do not have the necessary information available at the moment. However, I shall deal with this question of the hon. member for Wynberg later on. I now want to come back to the question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The South African Broadcasting Corporation has not erected a broadcasting station in Malawi and I do not know where the hon. member gets those particulars from. In the course of my Second-Reading speech I indicated why it was essential to erect foreign broadcasting stations. This is a technical improvement of our services, and I think that everybody is agreed that it is essential—and this is the way I have always interpreted the Opposition’s standpoint—that we improve our foreign services, since to do so is in the interests of South Africa itself. If we want to do so, it stands to reason that we might have to erect stations in foreign countries so as to contribute to the technical improvement of those services. I do not think that there is any difference of opinion in this regard. I am not prepared to accept this amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove. It would compel me statutorily to publish, in all cases, the particulars in regard to the acquisition or erection of broadcasting stations. Such stations will, from the nature of the case, have to be established in conjunction with other governments.

Political considerations may at the present moment or in the future make it undesirable in some cases for the countries concerned—for the sake of their foreign relations—to disclose particulars in regard to these matters at a particular juncture or even at any stage. For that reason I am not prepared to accept this amendment which would place me under a statutory obligation. Since the acquisition or erection of such broadcasting stations is subject to the approval of the Minister, the South African Broadcasting Corporation will not act unilaterally in regard to this matter. I shall be prepared to reply to all questions in this regard, i.e. where circumstances such as I have already mentioned do not make it undesirable to furnish certain particulars or to disclose them at a particular juncture. In all cases of this nature I want to give the assurance that the Government will act with a great deal of responsibility and circumspection, and I am really not prepared to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that that assurance given by the hon. the Minister means very little to me. It means nothing to me, less than nothing. We have already had examples of how he refuses to furnish this House with information, and today we had another example of this kind. I have already mentioned this example to you, Sir.

What are the other examples, apart from to-day’s example?

Let me mention them to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister asked me where I had got the report that the S.A.B.C. had erected a broadcasting station in Malawi.

Order! This matter is entirely out of order. The broadcasting station in Malawi is not under discussion now.

In the course of the Second-Reading debate this matter of the broadcasting station in Malawi was discussed.

There is no mention of such a broadcasting station in this clause. The hon. the Minister has already said that the S.A.B.C. did not erect any broadcasting station in Malawi.

They did not erect it, but they assisted in erecting it. I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation that the S.A.B.C. did not erect a broadcasting station there.

This matter has no bearing on the clause under discussion.

I should like to read out a report which appeared in a newspaper, and then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it has any bearing on this clause. If the report does not have any bearing on this clause, I shall of course respect your ruling, Sir. The hon. the Minister did not know what information I had at my disposal, and I should like to read out this report to him. This report appeared in The Star in August, 1968, and reads as follows—

The engineer’s name is Mr. J. Seymour. I cannot see why this does not fall under this clause.

Order! I have already given my ruling. This clause does not contain the words “acquire” or “ereot”.

In the report?

The hon. the Minister has already explained what happened.

With respect. Mr. Chairman, in reply to a question of mine the hon. the Minister said in this House …

Order! The hon. member must accept my ruling now or resume his seat.

Mr. Chairman. I think the hon. the Minister’s attitude here is unreasonable. The South African Broadcasting Corporation is asking for powers greater than the powers of our own Department of Foreign Affairs. The Department of Foreign Affairs has many “secret” activities, but they disclose each year the total amount of money that has to be made available for these services. The hon. the Minister, however, will not even meet the hon. member for Orange Grove with his amendment, by agreeing to disclose the total cost. Are we not to have any details of these transactions? Surely the hon. the Minister is not prepared to give the S.A.B.C. this discretionary power which exceeds the power granted to any Government Department?

Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove actually seeks to impose restraints on the hon. the Minister by prescribing certain steps he has to take. The amendment proposes that he should give an account of all the transactions of the S.A.B.C. within 14 days after the opening of Parliament, or if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing session. In looking at the section in the old Act of 1952, one sees that it is being provided very clearly that information in regard to the S.A.B.C. must be tabled in this House before 30th April. Since 1952 this has been the correct procedure and nobody has objected to it. But when this Bill, which provides for the acquisition of broadcasting, stations and property outside our borders, is presented to this House, these hon. members want to force the hon. the Minister by means of this amendment to report to this House on such transactions within 14 days after they have been entered into. To my mind this is completely impracticable, and I want to state very clearly that the motive behind this amendment is not so much that the hon. Opposition and the House should get to know and be aquainted with all the particulars of similar transactions, but it is a deliberate attempt at questioning here the integrity and the honesty of the hon. the Minister as a member of the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the words “it is a deliberate attempt at questioning the Minister’s integrity”.

I withdraw them, but I want to say that a very strong attempt is being made here at conveying the impression to the House that this would be the position, and that in regard to these matters the hon. the Minister cannot be trusted in future. That is the whole idea of this amendment. I want to ask the hon. Opposition why this has not been essential over all these years, and why it has become so essential now? In the light of the service having to be improved through the acquisition of stations in foreign countries, this amendment has now become essential all of a sudden! There is nothing sinister in this Bill. It merely seeks to facilitate and improve the services of the S.A.B.C. That is why I say that there is something sinister in this amendment. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has already announced that he is not prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister is asking for additional powers in this clause. The amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove seeks to limit these powers to ensure that the hon. the Minister informs Parliament of his actions. I submit that all the hon. member for Orange Grove is trying to illustrate to us is how he wants to have the powers of the Minister controlled. It is unthinkable that the hon. the Minister should virtually be given unlimited powers to establish broadcasting stations outside the country. I submit that the hon. member for Orange Grove’s amendment is a competent one to ensure that the hon. the Minister’s powers are controlled. We think the powers of the hon. the Minister should be controlled.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the words of the hon. the Minister where he spoke about a broadcasting station and where he said that aid had been granted in installing it. If you will permit me to mention it, Sir, the hon. the Minister said that aid had been granted in installing that broadcasting station.

Order! I know what the hon. member is referring to now, but a Second Reading Debate is not a Committee Stage. At the Second Reading many liberties are permitted which do not always have a bearing on the Committee Stage.

In that case, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether a transaction of that nature would in any way be restricted, changed or altered by the insertion of this particular clause? Is it going to change his powers in any way whatsoever? If it is not going to change his powers, may we accept that what took place in the case of that broadcasting station is also going to take place in future, and that consequently this legislation means even less?

Mr. Chairman, that matter to which the hon. member for Orange Grove is referring, has absolutely no bearing on this clause. The hon. member asked me a question; I replied to it and furnished the information he requested. In the course of the Second Reading Debate I also replied to this in detail, and if the hon. member does not know where to obtain the information, I am not going to tell him again. I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington is not here at the moment, because he said that I was being unreasonable towards the Committee. I should rather think that hon. members opposite are unreasonable to expect me to accept this amendment. And I shall tell them why I think so, because there is a very valid reason for it. I told hon. members that one of the main reasons why I cannot accept this amendment, was that the erection of these radio stations obviously had to meet with the approval of the governments of those countries where such stations are erected. Hon. members are aware that amongst those countries there are some which, for political reasons connected with their foreign relations, are not keen to have it known that any co-operation is being given to South Africa. Such countries do exist. This amendment will now oblige me to disclose the names of those countries whose governments gave permission for radio stations to be erected there.

But you did not have anything to do with the erection of the radio station in Malawi. Why then is this clause being inserted in the Bill?

Malawi is not one of the countries which are under discussion. I am not even referring to Malawi. I think hon. members will concede that I am adopting a quite reasonable attitude. The hon. member for Kensington asked me something, and I deplore the fact that an hon. member says certain things during the Committee Stage and then leaves the House so that I cannot reply to him.

He took a trunk line call.

Then I withdraw my words. The hon. member for Kensington asked whether I would not disclose any information. I repeat what I said in saying that I could not accept the amendment. I say that I am prepared to reply to any questions in regard to that matter if I consider the disclosure of such information to be desirable. The control exercised by Parliament is not in the least being curtailed by this. I can still be called to account as the responsible Minister, because everything that is being done in regard to these foreign stations, is subject to the approval of the Minister. Consequently the control of Parliament is not being curtailed in the least. The hon. member is now asking for more extensive powers than Parliament has had in regard to the erection of radio stations up to now. As far as domestic radio stations are concerned, the principle Act granted the S.A.B.C. the right to erect domestic stations anywhere without the permission of the Minister. As far as foreign stations are concerned, it is being provided here that this has to be done with the permission and approval of the Minister. In other words, I can be called to account here. But that hon. members want to force me to disclose everything at my disposal, also when there are difficult cases such as those I mentioned in regard to governments of other countries which do not want their names to be disclosed, is something I cannot accept. I cannot accept that I should be placed under such a statutory obligation.

Let me repeat, I do not think this is an unreasonable attitude to adopt. Nor will I refuse to furnish any information, as the hon. member for Orange Grove now wants to suggest. I think that to-day it was probably the first time that I did not want to furnish the hon. member for Orange Grove with information. The hon. member knew why he put this question to me. He merely wanted to indicate that what I said, was not right. He knows that in the past, too, the Minister did not have the statutory powers to disclose this information. In terms of the principal Act this is treated as an internal administrative matter of the S.A.B.C. A previous Minister of the United Party, the late Minister Clarkson, granted the S.A.B.C. this power. It is very easy to ask me a whole lot of questions to which I cannot give any reply, because those powers were specifically granted to the S.A.B.C. by a statute of this Parliament. Does the hon. member expect me not to adhere to the provisions of the principal Act?

Order! The hon. the Minister should now come back to the clause.

Sir, I am still dealing with the clause.

Order! No, the hon. the Minister is digressing very far from the point now.

This is not a question of additional powers being requested here for the S.A.B.C.; it is still being done subject to the permission of the Minister.

The hon. member for Kensington is back. He suggested that I was adopting an unreasonable attitude, but I do not think that I am adopting an unreasonable attitude. I think I am quite reasonable in saying that I cannot commit myself to this amendment. I cannot be expected to tell Parliament in all cases what the names are of the governments with which agreements have been concluded in regard to the future erection of radio stations. The hon. member for Kensington knows just as well as I do that there are certain governments which, for the sake of their relations with other countries, are not keen to disclose the nature of the negotiations they are conducting with us. I know the hon. member as a very reasonable person, and I think he will acknowledge that I am right on that point. I cannot report on what is being done in every single case.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me whether no information would be furnished. I want to repeat that I shall reply to any question, since the approval of the Minister has to be obtained for the erection of these stations. I am prepared to reply to any question in regard to this matter if at that stage it is considered desirable to disclose such information and on condition that the governments concerned do not object to the disclosure of such information.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member has already had three turns to speak on this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment standing in my name—

To add the following proviso at the end of the proposed subsection (1A) inserted by paragraph (h): Provided that details of all such investments shall be included in the report referred to in section 24.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to accept this amendment. I think one can say it follows to a large extent on the discussions we have just had. We wish to have full details from the Minister about the investments the board is allowed to undertake with surplus funds. I think we are entitled to this information. I think we should try to avoid having the debate we just had on a previous part of this clause. One might ask why should there be secrecy about the investment of these funds. I hope we can avoid another hysterical defence of the S.A.B.C.; I hope this air of secrecy will not persist, and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman we may, with your permission, discuss the previous amendment further, since it has not yet been put. I trust that you will allow me to express a few ideas on the amendment which was proposed here.

Which amendment is the hon. member discussing now?

The amendment to clause 6.

The amendment has not been withdrawn; it still stands.

That is why I say that we may still discuss it, Sir.

Yes.

I merely wanted your ruling as to whether I might discuss this clause, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Port Natal had moved a further amendment.

I must respond to what the hon. member for Orange Grove had to say here to-day. In the first place, he said that the hon. the Minister’s assurance meant nothing to him. To my mind this is an extremely deplorable attitude for an hon. member to adopt when a Minister gives him certain assurances in this House. I cannot see how he can go so far as to say that those assurances do not mean anything to him. To the same extent we on this side are giving this back to him, and I say to him that the goodwill or lack of it on the part of the Opposition can hardly mean anything to us on this side. The hon. member said that he was very keen to have certain information, and he said that the hon. the Minister had to furnish that information in regard to the acquisition of radio stations, sites, etc., outside our borders. What advantages would the disclosure of those transactions possibly hold for us? The hon. the Minister referred to this, and I want to emphasize what he said. To my mind this is deliberate … I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, you will probably order me again to withdraw my words, and I shall withdraw the word “deliberate” forthwith, without waiting for your ruling. I just want to submit …

Order! The hon. member should not repeat arguments; the hon. the Minister has already given a conclusive reply to this matter.

I am coming to that, Mr. Chairman. I say that this is actually aimed at upsetting the relations between South Africa and the other countries where these radio stations are being acquired. We know that all transactions, trade agreements, etc., are scrutinized by the outside world, and from certain quarters there are always unfavourable reactions to what we do. That is why I can only conclude that this request for information is actually aimed at placing South Africa in a difficult position. The hon. member wants the information to be tabled within 14 days and also to be published in the annual report, and no other advantage can be derived from doing so.

Mr. Chairman, in all fairness to the hon. member for Wynberg I should like to say the following. As regards her question in connection with copyright and the disposal thereof, I want to tell her that I cannot tell her. One probably sells them. There probably is no other way. I want to give her the assurance that as far as this matter is concerned, regard will, of course, have to be had to the requirements of the Copyright Act. No further powers than those laid down in the Copyright Act are being given to the S.A.B.C.

Unfortunately I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Port Natal. The amendment of the hon. member seeks to introduce a new principle, i.e. the publication of details of the investments of the S.A.B.C. Up to now this has not been done. He now wants to introduce a new principle into the Act.

Why should that information remain secret?

The hon. member should put that question to the people who introduced the principal Act of 1936. There probably are good reasons why that information should remain secret. I have to approve the stocks or securities of all investments made by the S.A.B.C. I shall be prepared to reply to questions in the ordinary course of events, if that is at all possible and desirable. The questions may be put to me. It is strange, of course, that the amendment of the hon. member for Port Natal applies only to the housing fund and the bursary fund. There are other funds as well. The existing provisions of the Act also make provision for the funds in the interest fund, the redemption fund, the reserve fund and the development fund, which are not required for immediate payment, to be invested in securities approved by the Minister. There is no requirement in the Act that details of the investment of money from those funds should be published. The hon. member does not mention this in his amendment either. He is requesting this merely in respect of the housing fund and the bursary fund.

I do not deem it necessary to accept this amendment, nor do I regard it as an improvement of the Act. Other State corporations, Escom, Iscor and the I.D.C., are under no legal obligation either to publish details of their investments, and in my opinion the S.A.B.C. should continue to have these powers.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I say something in respect of the amendment …

No, the hon. member may not do so; he has had his three turns.

This is a new amendment …

It makes no difference; the hon. member should study the rules; then he will know.

Amendment proposed by Mr. E. G. Malan put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. E. D. Winchester put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

This clause deals with the licence which is issued to the S.A.B.C., I assume. I just want to know whether these two words, “any law”, instead of the words “Radio Act”, make any difference to the original intention of the Act.

No, it makes no difference.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

This clause is an important one in that it deals with a new clause providing for the issue of free licences. I have standing in my name on the Order Paper an amendment which I would like to move—

The purpose of this amendment is to endeavour to get further clarity from the Minister as to incorporating other institutions where it is perhaps desirable that free licences should be issued. If we look at the long title of the Bill we see that it refers to the issue of free licences to certain categories of educational and other institutions and persons, but the provisions of the Bill then narrows it down by mentioning in line 57 “educational, charitable and state institutions”. The object of my amendment is more or less to bring the provision into line with the words of the long title, where it includes “other institutions”. This will be subject to the regulations because the clause provides that the Board may prescribe these matters by regulation after the Board has satisfied itself that these institutions meet the requirements of such regulations. The Minister knows that in terms of the regulations which were published in 1962, the granting of concessionary licences is limited to certain groups, just as this clause wishes to limit it to educational, charitable and State institutions. In terms of the regulations there has been a good deal of confusion in specifying which are the deserving cases and, in terms of this clause, which will be the institutions which will be able to enjoy this privilege of free listeners’ licences. In terms of the regulations of 1962, this concession was confined to organizations receiving subsidies from the Central Government, the Provincial Administration or the Municipality, or one of the churches represented on the Corporation’s Advisory Council on religious broadcasts. Difficulty has arisen where you have organizations which can be classified as charitable although they do not receive any subsidy from the Government. I would therefore ask the Minister to elaborate upon the use of the term “charitable institutions”, in order to get some clarity. The position is that there are organizations, some of them registered welfare organizations, which do not receive any subsidy. There are also other organizations which are not registered welfare organizations which provide a charitable service in that they provide accommodation for indigent persons, people who rely on the radio to a great extent as their main means of keeping in contact with the outside world and for entertainment. The object of the amendment is to provide for other institutions which might be able to satisfy the regulations in regard to the issue of free licences. I hope the Minister will accept the amendment because as I said before, looking at the long title, it does not restrict the institutions merely to educational, charitable and State institutions, but also refers to other institutions and persons.

I want to tell the hon. member that charitable institutions need not necessarily be subsidized by the State only. There can also be other institutions which are not subsidized by the State. Now my difficulty in respect of the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo is that the provision in the Bill includes all educational, charitable and State institutions. What other institutions can there be? I do not think the hon. member has business institutions, which are based on a profit motive, in mind. I do not know what institutions the hon. member can have in mind in any event, because I tell him that charitable institutions include institutions which are not subsidized by the State. In any event, I do not know whether the acceptance of the amendment will help the hon. member in any way, because all institutions will nevertheless have to be approved by the Minister. As I see it, the amendment actually has no meaning.

Perhaps I should elaborate a little more in regard to the institutions I have in mind. I refer to institutions which have not been accepted as institutions entitled to the concessionary licences in terms of the existing regulations. Now the privilege of free licences is to be extended also by regulation in terms of this clause. The Minister would like an indication of the type of institution I have in mind. I would like to illustrate by mentioning such an organization as the Moths, which administers homes for the aged but does not register itself as a welfare organization and therefore possibly would not be classified as a charitable institution. They are not a registered welfare organization. They administer homes for the aged on a non-profit basis and they themselves try to raise funds to keep that institution running. The point is that there could be a situation arising whereby a person can qualify for a free listener’s licence due to the fact that he is in an organization termed a charitable institution in terms of this clause, but there might be an organization such as the one I have mentioned which could perhaps not be classified as a charitable institution because it is not a registered welfare organization although it does charitable work. Perhaps the Minister could give an indication that an organization like the Moths would be accepted as a charitable institution in terms of this clause.

What the hon. member for Umbilo has just discussed actually is the regulations which are subject to my approval and not the clause. I repeat that nothing the hon. member has just said has convinced me to accept his amendment, because the institution to which he has referred can also be regarded as a charitable institution. I have stated explicitly that other institutions which are not subsidized by the State will also be regarded as charitable institutions and, if there is any justification for this on the grounds of merit, the Minister may give his approval for such institutions to be granted this concession. I want to tell the hon. member in all love that his amendment will have no effect.

I support the hon. member for Umbilo. I can appreciate the Minister’s difficulties, but we do have institutions in the Western Cape which are not subsidized by the State, but the inmates are pensioners. While the S.A.B.C. has assisted them to the extent of relieving them from paying licence fees to a certain extent, it has not been able to give overall assistance to the institutions. I discussed the matter with the former Minister and the interpretation is very broad, but the Board has always taken the line that they are not empowered to give these institutions the relief they request, although they are sympathetic. I do not think this goes far enough and I think the amendment clarifies the position. I think we should encourage these institutions which do not call upon the State for subsidies.

Order! That is not a matter to be discussed now; it falls under the Department of Social Welfare.

This is just to give relief to the inmates of the institution.

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Umbilo. I believe that what he suggests would give greater powers under the regulations to make these licences at a lesser fee available to more people. But there is one important thing I wish to point out in regard to the clause itself. The impression seems to have been created outside that this is an entirely new, fine and splendid concession, granting concessionary radio licences to people, and even granting free licences, but for the record I think it should be stated what the present position is. The present position is laid down in the principal Act which says—

Sir, that proves that the institution of free licences has been in this country since the passing of the original Broadcasting Act in 1936. Although basically there are improvements in this amendment, it does not alter the fact that the possibility has been there for more than 30 years now to grant free licences. One of the small but nevertheless significant changes is the fact that where individuals had to pay 25 cents in the past, they will now get their licences free. I concede that that is a good idea.

Sir, I want to raise one matter in regard to the actual wording of this section. There is a reference here to hospitals but the reference is to categories of hospitals as determined by the board. The wording is, “such categories of hospitals and persons as the board may approve”. Sir, I take it that with the new approach of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs there is no intention that this should apply to any of the provincial hospitals, for instance, which fall under the control of the provincial administrations. The provision as it stands appears to me to give the power to the board to exempt certain classes of, say, provincial hospitals and not others. The board has a discretionary power.

All public hospitals, including provincial hospitals, will be given free listeners’ licences. I may just say that the hon. members have not convinced me. I am not prepared to include the words “other business institutions”, as that can only create misunderstanding. It may perhaps be interpreted to mean that business institutions which operate with a profit motive should also be included. Here provision is being made for free listeners’ licences to educational, charitable and State institutions, and to my mind this provision is broad enough. It is as broad as we want it to be at the moment. If the word “other” were to be inserted here, it could only cause confusion. I assure hon. members that the institutions which have been mentioned here will be regarded as charitable institutions. In terms of the Act as it stands, the Board of Governors will in any event be able to consider the merits. I do not think that the insertion of the word “other” will make any difference.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

I rise to express, as we did at the Second Reading, our dissatisfaction with this clause on account of the fact that it gives the S.A.B.C. very great powers in regard to the expropriation of land for its own purposes. I believe it is not a right that should be granted to an organization such as this which has no shareholders and no annual general meeting where it can account to its shareholders or to the people who provided it with its funds, for what it has been doing. We might have something in the S.A.B.C. annual report in the future about these expropriations and we can then ask the Minister, who has to grant his approval, what these expropriations were. I trust that when we do put questions in regard to this matter in Parliament in future, the hon. the Minister will give us full information, as he undertook to do under the previous clause. Sir, this power of expropriation is a vast one; it is an important one. It is a power which should be exercised by the Government itself. I want to ask the Minister why it is not possible for the expropriation to be done by the Post Office, instead of by the S.A.B.C., as this clause provides. In effect the position would be the same really, except that the Post Office is much more under the control and scrutiny of Parliament and also under the scrutiny of the Auditor-General. If the Post Office were to do it—just to show the hon. the Minister that I am not doubting his bona fides; he will have to approve of it—then we on this side of the House will be satisfied. We would not object if this expropriation were done by the Department of Lands or by the Department of Public Works, or whichever other Government Department does expropriations at the moment. We do not like the fact that this clause provides that any reference in the Expropriation Act to the Minister and the State shall be construed as a reference to the Corporation. In other words, under the original Expropriation Act there was a reference to the Minister and there was a reference to a State Department, and now instead of the word “Minister” we have the word “Corporation” and instead of the word “State” we have the word “Corporation”. I feel that it is a wrong principle to give these extended powers to the S.A.B.C.

It is not a new principle that is being introduced into our legislation here. Escom has the same powers. I cannot see why the S.A.B.C. should not be granted these powers of expropriation. It is in the interests of the country that our broadcasting services should be supported, and the S.A.B.C. should have powers of expropriation in cases where people charge unreasonable prices. The hon. member said the S.A.B.C. could not be called to account, but it can be called to account through me, because I have to approve all expropriations carried out by the S.A.B.C. As the Minister concerned, I can be called to account here. When I approve an expropriation, it is carried out in the same way as is prescribed in the relevant provisions of sections 4 to 13 of the Expropriation Act, 1965. in terms of which land is expropriated by the State. The following are the more important matters dealt with in the relevant provision: (a) The serving of a notification upon the owner to the effect that the land is going to be expropriated; (b) the passing of ownership in such land upon the body which expropriates; (c) the duties of the owner of and the holder of a mortgage bond over the land expropriated; (d) the procedure recording to which compensation for the land shall be determined by a court in cases where agreement cannot be reached in regard to it; and (e) the basis on which compensation is to be determined. I want to tell the hon. member that the Post Office has no powers of expropriation. Accordingly the Post Office cannot undertake expropriations on behalf of the S.A.B.C. If the Post Office had these powers of expropriation, we would have had to charge the S.A.B.C. for expropriations, because the Post Office is a business undertaking now which has to be paid for the services it renders.

Who is doing it now on behalf of the Post Office; is it the Department of Lands or the Department of Public Works?

No, there is no such thing as a Department of Lands any more.

The Department of Land Tenure.

No, I am sorry; powers were delegated to the Post Office for the purpose of carrying out expropriations in respect of its own affairs, but it definitely does not have the power to carry out expropriations on behalf of other undertakings such as the S.A.B.C.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

This is one of the clauses on which we on this side of the House feel rather strongly. It involves an alteration in the report which the Post Office is compelled by law to Table every year in Parliament. In terms of the original Act, which is now being amended, the Post Office had to report each year, through the Minister, on the following matters, and I only want to read out paragraphs (b), (e) and (f) which are proposed to be deleted, to indicate how important it is that they should not be deleted and that they should remain in the report.

You need not deal with that at great length.

Sir, the hon. the Minister is not making my speech for me.

If you allow me to speak it will not be necessary for you to continue. Let me tell you what my attitude is with regard to the matter.

If the hon. the Minister is going to say that he is going to accept the amendment, then I am prepared to sit down.

I am prepared to accept the amendment and I shall tell the hon. member the reason for that. The hon. member for Orange Grove sees sinister and ulterior motives here which do not exist. The game is not worth the candle. In actual fact these particulars are reflected in the financial statements and if this is the hon. member’s main difficulty in regard to this legislation, I am not prepared to quibble about it. The matter is not as important as the hon. member wants to make out. As a matter of fact, this is the only amendment which in any way seeks to reduce the control exercised by Parliament, about which the hon. member is so concerned, although it does not really do so in effect. The hon. member did not even mention this point at the Second Reading the other day as an example to justify his amendment. This is really not of such importance that we need argue about it. Because there are no sinister and ulterior motives here such as those the hon. member wants to ascribe to me, it is not worth arguing about the matter, and I am prepared to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my speech consists of only two words: “Thank you.”

This is the best speech you have ever made.

The hon. member has not moved his amendment yet.

I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

I move—

In the White Paper on South-West Africa a recommendation was made to the effect that the powers which the Archives Act, 1962 (Act No. 6 of 1962), conferred upon the Administrator should be transferred to the Minister concerned in the Republic. In this Bill effect is given to this recommendation. Provision is also made in this Bill for certain other amendments which are necessary to facilitate the administration of the principal Act, viz.—

1. (a) authorizing the Minister to establish archives depots and intermediate depots at places in addition to the seats of the Provincial Administrations, because problems arise in obtaining suitable accommodation at the Provincial seats and also for security purposes.

We find a good example of this in Cape Town, where it is simply impossible to accommodate everything, with the result that an intermediate depot will have to be established at Stellenbosch for a part. Further amendments are—

1. (b) the dates on which the five-year periods in respect of granting the public access to archives shall commence are determined so as to be the same for both the Republic and the Territory of South-West Africa, except that archives in the Territory have to be safeguarded in an archives depot for five years longer than is the case at present, before becoming accessible to the public;
2. (c) a departmental head or person in charge of archives of a local authority may grant permission to any person to consult such archives as he may still have in his possession, that is to say, files and papers which are still in use, subject to certain general regulations as the Minister may issue. The Act allows such permission to be granted in a very limited number of cases, which impedes necessary research work for the Public Service.

Lastly, special provision is being made for control measures in regard to the granting of access to the archives in the newly established archives depots for the Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good Bill. The hon. the Minister will forgive me for using the word in the correct context when I say that this is a progressive Bill. The hon. the Minister has progressive ideas. The two important clauses are clauses 2 and 5. Clause 2 amends the present section 5 dealing with decentralization and clause 5 is a constructive clause. We therefore support this Bill wholeheartedly.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill covers the entire heraldic issue, which is a very technical matter. In 1962, when the Heraldry Act was placed on the Statute Book, history was made, because it was the first time that a Bill dealing purely with heraldry was passed by Parliament. It was pioneering work and the time has now arrived to review that Act in the light of the experience gained and with a view to greater efficiency and taking more modern tendencies into account.

I hope hon. members will not argue that I am acting over-hastily by introducing amending legislation at this stage already, because I may mention that the Heraldry Council already recommended certain amendments after its first meeting in October, 1963. In our opinion the Council was a little hasty, and it was then decided to give the Act a reasonable chance so that we could determine all its bottlenecks. The work study officers of my Department conducted an investigation into the operation of the Act, and acting on their recommendations, we then proceeded to draw up amending legislation. The Heraldry Council was also consulted in regard to the matter, and the result of all this work is the Bill now before the House. The amendments proposed are mainly the following. Firstly, the Heraldry Council is being elevated to the highest heraldic authority in the Republic. Secondly, the State Herald is being enabled to deal with many more applications for the registration of coats of arms himself; to assist him in cases where legitimate doubt exists as to the heraldic correctness of an application, a heraldry committee is being established. Thirdly, the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935 (Act No. 23 of 1935) is being repealed and the provisions of that Act in respect of the registration of names, special names and uniforms are being incorporated in the Heraldry Act. The object we are seeking to achieve by these means is to deal with applications quickly and efficiently, and it is also hoped to reduce the cost connected with the registration of an application.

I just want to outline briefly the difficulties experienced in applying the Act. The functions which the Act entrusted to the Heraldry Council and the State Herald are in fact identical, but with the exception of a number of coats of arms introduced by law and dating from the period before the coming into operation of the Act, the State Herald could not deal with any application, even if it were heraldically absolutely correct. He had to refer all applications to a committee on coats of arms which the Council had established to advise it. The committee on coats of arms, of which the State Herald was a member, checked the application and recommended its acceptance or rejection, as the case may be, to the council, which always accepted the recommendations of the committee. Experience showed us that. You will immediately notice how much delay takes place, especially where an application is heraldically correct and could in the first instance have been approved by the State Herald for registration purposes. Apart from this, the finalization of applications was further delayed by all the rules laid down by regulation. To change a rule which has been laid down by regulation is a cumbersome procedure. Let me just give you an example of how much time was lost as a result of the regulations. The average period from the day on which an application for the registration of a coat of arms was received until such application was disposed of by the council was one year and five months. However much the Council and the State Herald would have liked to shorten the procedures, they could do nothing about it, because the procedures were prescribed by regulation in terms of the Act. Neither would amending the regulation have solved the problem completely, because it was not possible to foresee all the circumstances and, moreover, the duplication of the functions of the Council and of the State Herald would have continued to exist. It is also the considered opinion of the Public Service Commission that procedures should not be prescribed by regulation and we have now had practical experience of the truth of that point of view. We were overcautious with our first pioneering steps in the field of heraldry, but now we have discovered the bottlenecks so that they can be eliminated.

Another anomaly cropped up in the Act which simply has to be eliminated. Section 9 of the Act made provision for appeal to the Council against a decision of the State Herald. As has been indicated, the State Herald could not make any decision without consulting the Council, and it was only after such consultation that he could make his decision known. If an applicant appealed to the Council against the decision, it meant that the Council would in fact have had to hear an appeal against its own decision. This also had to be eliminated. As far as the Council itself is concerned, it is necessary to explain that the Bill is now investing it with final authority in the field of heraldry. The Council’s decision will be final now, and it will no longer be possible to appeal to the Minister against decisions by this body, because Judge and Appeal Judge are now in fact becoming the same person. This was a completely overcautious move which has now, after six years, been proved to be unnecessary in practice. The Council is made up of experts in this specialized field and it is only right that its decision should be final.

To place the position of the Council beyond any doubt, it is now being provided that it will determine the policy which will apply in regard to the approval of an application. In the past the Council was restricted in dealing with an application to take into account only the principles and the rules of heraldry, but while the Council will now become the highest authority, it was deemed fit to invest it with increased powers. What is more, the Council will now become the final authority in respect of a related matter, namely the registration of names and uniforms. Since the coming into operation of the Heraldry Act, 1962 (Act No. 18 of 1962) only uniforms and names were registered in terms of the Protection of Names, Uniforms and Badges Act, 1935 (Act No. 23 of 1935). All coats of arms were of course dealt with in terms of the Heraldry Act itself. Consequently it was decided that the provisions of the Act of 1935 relating to names and uniforms could just as well be incorporated in the Heraldry Act itself, especially since the Heraldry Council will now be the final authority in connection with the registration of names and uniforms.

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to make a useful contribution to this debate and to offer any constructive suggestions. I still remember when the original Bill was introduced an hon. member who had to say something about the Bill contented himself with quoting from Gray’s “Elegy written in a Country Churchyard”. Every school boy knows this verse—

I do not wish to introduce a lugubrious tone into this discussion, but the hon. the Minister has told us that in the light of experience it is necessary to introduce this amendment. On many occasions I have suggested here that he should refer a Bill to a select committee, but on this occasion I want to say please do not refer it to a select committee. As the hon. the Minister has told us, one needs special technical knowledge to deal with this question. We speak here of a function of the Heraldry Council and the Bureau of Heraldry. The name I am accustomed to is the College of Heralds. They are men who make a special study of the subject. I am afraid I cannot offer any constructive suggestion. We support this Bill and we leave it to the hon. the Minister to appoint his experts. I know he will appoint them very carefully, because he has knowledge of these matters. There might be one or two members in this House who are interested in heraldry, but I doubt whether there are many. The hon. the Minister has told us that he has come with this measure, because these people encountered some difficulties. Difficulties are inevitable. Once when I was president of an institution I became involved in designing a coat of arms. Having been involved in that once I have decided never again to be involved in such an undertaking. We support the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

(Committee Stage)

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed—

1. (5) A member of the council who is not in the full-time employment of the State, shall out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose, be paid in respect of his services as member of the council such allowances as the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may determine.
2. (6) Such a member of the council who is also a member of the committee shall in respect of his services as member of the committee similarly be paid additional allowances, so determined.

The reason for this amendment is that after the matter had been dealt with in the Other Place, the Treasury felt that it should exercise certain control measures. This amendment makes provision for that.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment, as printed in my name—

1. (d) by the substitution of subsection (4) of the following subsection:
   1. (4) The registrar shall not register the said deed unless a certificate has been furnished to him by the cessionary to the effect that the provisions of any law in connection with the expropriation or vesting of such servitude or right to minerals have been complied with, and if it appears from the said certificate that such certificate or right to minerals has been expropriated or vested subject to any existing conditions, the deed shall be registered subject to those conditions.

This is a relevant amendment to the Bill in view of the amendment to section 32 (1) of the principal Act, as embodied in clause 4. It is in fact a consequential amendment of the existing subsection (4) of section 32 in connection with the registration procedure of a deed of cession at the expropriation or vesting of a servitude, as has now been laid down in section 32 (1).

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, during the adjournment of the discussion about this legislation last week, I had only touched upon a few points. On that occasion I said, inter alia, the following. Since 1937 no change has been made to the Marketing Act in respect of its principles. When the Marketing Act was passed in 1937 the farmer obtained greater control over the marketing of his product. In the legislation he saw a way of obtaining price stability for himself. What every control board does in this connection we do not want to discuss now. We cannot discuss it, and it is in any case well-known to each hon. member who is concerned with agriculture. As the hon. the Minister has explained to us, the measure now before the House briefly contemplates the following. Firstly, it contemplates the repeal of old legislation prior to the passing of the Marketing Act in 1937 and, secondly, it is repealing certain sections of legislation subsequent to that. The retention of those provisions is becoming altogether redundant, as the hon. the Minister explained. I do not want to deal with all the clauses which the hon. the Deputy Minister explained to us; I rather want to focus my attention on clause 15 of this legislation. I regard it as a new principle which will now be included in the Marketing Act. The Minister now obtains the right to impose a levy on an unregulated product. This makes considerable additions to section 84 of the principal Act. In the case of those products for which no scheme previously existed, the Minister may now impose a levy. While I am now dealing with this, I want to express the gratitude of this side, and especially of the agricultural group, to the Department for this memorandum about these important changes.

Thank the hon. the Minister as well.

Yes, we can also thank the Minister for that. I specifically wanted to thank him for something else. He usually makes his speeches available to us when he delivers them, or shortly afterwards. When he made his Second Reading speech on this measure, he spoke extremely quickly and it was difficult to follow every word. We want to thank him in any case for making his speeches available to us in this way. In the memorandum it is stated very clearly that the imposition of a levy is not contemplated on every unregulated product. It nevertheless surprised me that the Minister did not, in his Second Reading speech, indicate what products he contemplated placing certain levies on. There are certain obvious products, for example perishable products, and I trust that the levies will merely have a bearing on that class of product. If the Minister also has other products in mind we should like to know about them when he replies to this debate.

Clause 15 brings about a very great change; it could even be termed far-reaching. However, the necessity for the imposition of a levy on unregulated products does exist, and we on this side would not want to deny this. But in terms of this clause the Minister can impose levies in accordance with section 43 of the principal Act. This levy can be imposed in this way for years without a scheme being created or without the producer of unregulated products being consulted in any way in respect of how much the levy will be. Nowhere in clause 15 is the producer consulted in this respect. We find this deficiency altogether strange. We are not against the principle of the imposition of the levy. What we find strange is that the producer concerned is not consulted when the levy is imposed. I hope that this state of affairs is not deliberate. If it is being done deliberately then the Minister has not explained his actions. We regard it as an absolute disregard of the rights and wishes of the producers of unregulated products, however few they may be.

The Marketing Act was consolidated last year, and if one studies it thoroughly, one can deduce that certain basic principles must constantly be kept in mind. When a scheme is drawn up, the farmers who propose it and who participate in it through the medium of their control board, have a measure of control over what the levy will be. Normally it is also submitted to the Minister for his approval. There are the amendments to the Wool Acts and so on. A levy cannot be imposed except by way of legislation or as a result of the approval of the Minister. The farmers must also know what levy is being imposed upon them. However small the number of these producers of unregulated products may be, we regard their rights as important and we are not prepared to entrust the Minister with the sole right of saying what the levy will be if he has not consulted them. I think that the attitude of this side about this matter is altogether reasonable and realistic. I now want to give the Minister timely notice that at the Committee Stage we are going to move such an amendment, not to amend the principle of clause 15, but to ensure that he will consult the people concerned and will give them a chance to make their points of view known to him. Only subsequent to that will he be able to impose the levy upon them by proclamation in the Gazette.

I want to say again that this deficiency is a conspicuous one in this measure. One must remember that there must be producers even of the unregulated products. One cannot have a product without a producer. The Minister cannot say that it is difficult to get in touch with these people. It may be that they are not yet organized in an association, for example an Association of Producers of Perishable Products. He can nevertheless tell the people by means of the Gazette, for example, that he intends to impose a levy on their products and invite them to put forward suggestions to him.

As I have said, we are completely satisfied with the principle embodied in this. The reason for that is, of course, obvious. It is because it will be of great value to the farmers themselves. Such a levy will make it possible to make propaganda for, to publicize and to promote their products. When surpluses have to be disposed of, such a levy is necessary to defray any expenses involved.

The hon. the Minister also said very clearly that his Department does not have the staff to establish such a scheme for unregulated products. They are going to try to obtain the cooperation of our local authorities in respect of vegetable markets, etc. I think that the Minister must explain to us how he thinks it is to be done on an altogether voluntary basis and without expense being involved. I believe that there will be considerable expense involved and therefore we regard this levy as essential. But we say this with the reservation that these people be properly consulted before steps are taken by the Minister.

We on this side, of course, support the principle of this legislation wholeheartedly, and we are glad that the other side of the House also supports it. As the hon. member for Newton Park said, clause 15 of this Bill provides for the collection of a levy on an unregulated product, i.e. a product for which there is no control board and the producers of which therefore have no representation anywhere in order to make recommendations in regard to the extent of the levy, how it must be applied and how the marketing of that product should be dealt with in general. I regard it as essential that levies should also be collected here. The producers of unregulated products sometimes come up against problems, for example surpluses, for which a market must be arranged. Hence the advisability of also collecting levies here. One asks oneself whether it is worth while establishing control boards for these products as well. Usually the extent of production of these products, although of importance to their producers, is not so great that the additional expense of the establishment of a control board is justified.

Since this Bill is now making provision for the collection of a levy on these products, I want to express the hope that this will take place after consultation and that the Department is going to collect this levy in the proper way. But the Minister is a responsible person and therefore the Opposition need not fear the imposition of an improper levy on these products. I assume that he and his Department are going to determine this levy on a proper basis so that the product itself will not be detrimentally affected by it, but so that the levy will be applied for the benefit of those products. The Minister will probably reply to questions which have been put to him in this connection. However, I do not think that an improper levy is going to be imposed here, neither do I think that the administration will not take place to the benefit of the product itself. I think that we may accept that these things will be done with a sense of responsibility.

We have this legislation before us this afternoon as a result of, inter alia, a request from the Meat Board. With the modern development of your meat industry, the modern marketing of meat and the altered circumstances as well as buying habits of the public, this industry has slowly begun to develop in a certain direction. We have a system of auctioning on the hook in controlled areas. Here the Meat Board guarantees the producer a price based on grade and weight. In order to carry out all the activities involved in this the Board needs funds. On the one hand there is the Stabilization Fund and on the other the administrative funds which enable the Board to function. In the controlled areas there is therefore a levy on livestock which are sent there on the hoof. The levy is in respect of the carcase. The handling agents are responsible for the payment of this levy to the Board. He normally deducts it from the account of the supplier and pays it to the Meat Board. This is the procedure in the controlled areas. But we are changing the basis on which the levy is determined. Meat is no longer only brought from Rhodesia and South-West Africa on the hoof, but also as carcases and meat cuts. These are also offered for auction. A way must now be found of also imposing a levy on these carcases and meat cuts because there are also expenses involved in their handling. Therefore the Meat Board must also be in a position to undertake the handling of this meat. As I have said, there are expenses involved in its handling and it would be unfair to burden the person with those costs, who sends the meat to the market on the hoof. Hence the powers now being given to the Meat Board to collect a levy on this as well. On account of its control over the product, the Meat Board also receives a levy from the uncontrolled areas for the stabilization of the industry. In the uncontrolled areas this levy has had to be claimed by owners of abattoirs. They are responsible for collecting it and paying it to the Board. But we now find that meat cuts and carcases are also coming to the controlled areas from the uncontrolled areas. In this Bill provision is now being made for the collection of a levy on these carcases and meat cuts as well. By those means there will also be a contribution from these quarters to the stabilization of the industry. Secondly, we have another problem, and this is that export meat must not be marked. This is because of trade agreements and also because of the unattractiveness of the carcase when it is marked. In this Bill provision is being made for a levy to be claimed on such carcases.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to say that we welcome this Bill. Our less important agricultural industries really need such an Act. I am, for example, thinking of one small industry, i.e. the seed industry. The seed industry, i.e. vegetable seeds and other kinds of seeds, is slowly finding itself in a difficult position as a result of over-production and other problems. Therefore I say that stable prices and orderly marketing are essential for that industry. This Bill also contemplates giving the industry the benefits of control. The idea that there is now to be a simpler and most probably a cheaper scheme than the Control Board scheme is therefore welcomed.

However, I want to bring two matters to the hon. the Minister’s attention. The first is that it will not be quite so easy for the Minister and his Department to control such a scheme, because they do not have the necessary machinery to do so. I want to suggest that, where possible, if these small industries apply for such control, investigations should be made as to whether it would not be possible to appoint one of the other existing control boards as an agent, acting on behalf of the Minister. I think that this would be possible in many cases. It would also be very much more practical to use other control boards to act as agents. There is also the possibility of using other organizations for this purpose. I am thinking, for example, of central agricultural corporations which can be used. I think that it may be very much more practical, and perhaps also cheaper, to do it in this way.

The other matter I want to mention is the question of who has to apply for control. I see here in the explanatory memorandum that the Minister states that voluntary application will be made for such a scheme. We can get the position, however, that the vast majority of the members of an industry, such as the seed industry, want such a scheme. Ninety per cent of the producers could perhaps be interested in such an organization. If everyone is to ask voluntarily, one or two producers can put a spoke in the wheel and thereby make it impossible for the industry concerned to obtain this desirable control. Therefore, I just wonder whether it would not be possible to provide in the Bill that when, for example, 80 per cent of the members of an industry apply for control, it should be made compulsory. Just as we at that time had compulsory co-operatives which subsequently became the control boards, so I feel that provision should probably be made here for the vast majority of the members of an industry to obtain it if they ask for it.

I also just want to reply to the hon. member for Newton Park’s argument in connection with the levy. The proposed section 84C of the principal Act states very clearly wbat the objects of such a levy are going to be. I assume that if such a levy is imposed, close attention will be paid to what that levy is, in fact, going to be used for. I think that we may rest assured that the Minister will also use his discretion here and not impose an unnecessary or a too high levy which will make it difficult or impossible for the producer to take part in this scheme. I also assume that all the objects in the proposed section 84C will not necessarily be applicable to all industries. Different actions as proposed in the Bill will be applicable to the various industries. I am certain that the Minister will only do what is necessary for the industry concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I firstly want to express my appreciation for the fact that we are, in fact, able to discuss this legislation in the House to-day. In my opinion it is very important that we discuss the problems of agriculture from time to time. The marketing problem is one of the most important problems that agriculture is faced with. The marketing problem consists basically of surpluses and shortages. Another problem is to get the farmers, who produce the various products, to work together, thereby achieving an orderliness in the marketing of that product. Through the years we have included various commodities in this system of orderly marketing, but in the course of time certain shortcomings in existing legislation have also been brought to the fore. Therefore I welcome this opportunity to discuss it. Perhaps we shall have another opportunity at a much later stage because difficulties have developed in the marketing of many of the products and inevitably the producers have also experienced problems. We now have the opportunity of reviewing this whole position. In my opinion this Bill is a very practical proposal. It ought do away with many of these bottlenecks and points of friction. I now want to refer to the marketing of bananas as an example. For years there was a struggle among banana growers when over-production reared its head, when their prices began to decrease and when the deficiencies of an uncontrolled marketing system came to the fore. They differed for years among themselves about the desirability of controlled marketing in their industry. Meetings were held and if there was anyone eloquent enough to convince the people, they declared themselves prepared to support controlled marketing. A further difficulty develops when one or two producers feel that they can take advantage of the chaos. They then address other meetings and destroy everything that was achieved. Then there are the producers of fresh products, who are faced with over-production in one season and a tremendous shortage in the following season, owing to weather conditions. Then there is also the tendency among certain farmers to plant one product or another if they see that the price of a certain product was high during the previous season, or if they discover that climatic conditions are poor. Certain farmers spend great amounts of money to supply a specific product. From the nature of the case this is wrong because certain products require intensive cultivation, and when they come to the marketing of those products they find that the market is overloaded. At times we are faced with the same phenomenon when there are shortages. People gather together all the rubbish which is at all acceptable to the market and prejudice the producers who supply a good quality product. They prejudice these producers because they market products which are not actually acceptable but which are nevertheless marketed owing to the demand. In this way they bring the prices down and prejudice the people who are, in fact, placing a quality product on the market. If we take all these problems into consideration, we must particularly welcome clause 5. Clause 5 now opens the door to a measure of organization on the part of the State in that levies can be claimed. If all these farmers, after long discussions, after persuasion from the one side or the other, decide that there should be orderly marketing, there is still no basic organization and no funds which will help them to make a start. Then one finds the tendency among them to have to appoint staff and they must perform a wide variety of duties, and basically the people have nothing to begin with and concessions must be made here and there on the part of the authorities to try to get these people going in an orderly fashion. As you know, all the boards established under the Marketing Act must employ staff to study the entire problem, to keep in touch with producers and to find out about their problems. Funds are necessary for that staff which is needed and which often consists of experts. I do not think the hon. member for Newton Park need worry unnecessarily. It is necessary for such questions to be asked about how these people are going to be consulted in such a departmental undertaking. As I see it, the approach is simply that channels must be created whereby money can be collected so that that money can again be applied in the interests of the farmers concerned.

We can go further. I want to draw your attention to the amendments, actually the repeals. which are subsequently proposed here. It is very clear what happened in those years of great marketing problems. The first Act which was drawn up was the one in 1930 to control the dairy industry. A Marketing Act did not yet exist then under which these schemes could be established. Others subsequently followed, the Mealie Control Act, the Tobacco Control Act and the Livestock and Meat Industries Act. These Acts appeared on the Statute Book after 1930 because orderly marketing in the country had become an ever increasing necessity. After the Marketing Act was passed we had the position that year after year we had to ask for certain of these control schemes which were placed on the Statute Book by the previous Acts, to be suspended, and I am glad that the stage has been reached where it is no longer necessary for us to come back and to request that these Acts, or portions of these Acts, be suspended. Look at an industry such as the tobacco industry, or even the citrus industry. We find that in order to deal with these problems of orderly marketing the farmers had to begin on a small scale by establishing co-operatives. They subsequently began to organize on a nation-wide scale and it took many years before the farmers could organize their co-operatives in such a way that there was co-operation.

But it always had the deficiency that a percentage of the farmers stood to one side, obstructed these co-operative arrangements, and tried to take advantage of the situation. There was also an obsession with some of the farmers that anything eminating from the authorities was actually being forced upon them; they are now being compelled by the Government to accept things which they did not ask for. The fact that the farmers organized themselves voluntarily in respect of certain of these commodities, had profitable results, but eventually they also had to say that this small percentage of farmers who were not participating were hampering orderly marketing. There were continual problems.

We had the case in the citrus industry of about 85 per cent of the farmers belonging to co-operatives, and through the co-operatives the Citrus Exchange was established which functions on a nation-wide basis, and this built up the entire marketing organization throughout the country. But now we have these 10 to 15 per cent of the people who dissociate themselves and who did not assist in the building up of the market for that product and who are trying to impede organized marketing, at the same time wanting to reap the benefits brought about for them by this co-operative body, without accepting the disadvantages and the expense involved. I therefore find it very important for the door to be opened here for the State to establish means whereby our farmers can be compelled, to a certain extent, to contribute to a fund, because this is what it is all about. The same thing that happened in the citrus industry happened in the tobacco industry, and therefore we had the Tobacco Control Act which is now being repealed and which at least ensured orderly marketing after the farmers had organized themselves on a co-operative basis.

In my opinion it is important that co-operation should exist between the farmers, especially where the marketing of perishable products is concerned. I am here thinking especially of the vegetable producers throughout the country. In the lowveld of the Eastern Transvaal a great deal of vegetables is produced during the winter months. In fact, the country is largely dependent on those vegetables at this time of the year. We have the problem that the farmers are cutting one another’s throats and that there is a lack of co-operation. I am referring, for example, to the production of tomatoes, beans and peas in these areas. There is no co-ordination between farmers. If, by way of a levy, one could make a start in organizing certain of these groups of farmers, who share something of a common interest, to build up a fund, the Department can, on that basis, create an organization for the people which is based on sounder foundations.

The logical result of that is that a board could then be established for these commodities. I was not in a position to examine everything, but as far as I could determine, the intention is actually that as soon as the establishment of such a fund from levies on certain commodities is contemplated, consultation should take place. I know of no instance as far as marketing is concerned, where the State has done anything from above without consulting the people. I know that in the banana industry people said: “A Banana Control Board has been established and they are now compelling farmers left and right to do certain things.” Complaints have also recently been made to me that the Banana Control Board was collecting a levy from the farmers and that the farmers did not know what had become of the money. The man who is producing today makes a contribution to the fund by way of a levy and he has no share in or control of the spending of that levy. The same sort of arguments can also be used here, but as far as these matters are concerned, we must not meet our troubles half-way.

It is necessary for us to review the overall position of our farmers and their problems and to realize that these laws are made after very careful study and consideration of the farmers’ problems. These laws are not made in order to satisfy a Department or a Minister, and neither are these amendments being introduced here to-day for that reason. These laws are made to deal with various problems which arise from time to time, especially in these disorganized communities which often consist of small groups. One of the basic problems of our agriculture is that we have 90,000 farmers each of whom, independent of the rest, must wrest a living from the soil, or off the land, in the case of livestock. There is now mutual competition to a large extent. It is actually surprising, under these marketing conditions, that many of our farmers are still in such a good position. Therefore it is particularly important that each of us who has the interests of farming at heart, should study this Bill and its implications.

Mr. Speaker, this Marketing Amendment Bill is one of those pieces of legislation which will contribute towards making the Marketing Act more streamlined. The orderly marketing and the proper distribution of products are of the most important functions of our Marketing Act. It is important, not only to the producers, but also to the consumers, that there should be proper distribution and control of food products. At times it does happen that there are surpluses in certain parts and shortages in other parts of the country. In order to grant the necessary powers, it is essential for us to pass this legislation. As regards the objection of the Opposition in respect of clause 15, which empowers the Minister to impose a levy on uncontrolled products, I want to say that it is absolutely essential to make provision for the orderly marketing of products and proper control over the marketing of products. Sometimes the quantities produced of some produot are not sufficient to allow of the establishment of a board of control, or it happens that it is essential to exercise control only in times of surpluses. Consequently it is of the utmost importance that these powers should be granted to the Minister to enable him to exercise such control. It is also a case of having to impose a levy on certain food commodities in order to regulate the distribution and orderly marketing of such commodities. This has happened in the case of several of these products. Some time ago, when there was such a large surplus of bananas that it was hardly possible to find a market for them, it was necessary to introduce control. Furthermore, it is desirable that the prices of products should not be too high. If too many people start producing a certain commodity, this leads to a surplus in the end as everything produced cannot be marketed. All these matters have to be regulated and controlled.

Order! The hon. member should really come back to the Bill. He cannot discuss the Marketing Act as such now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to discuss clause 15 in particular which empowers the Minister to make certain arrangements. It happens in the case of dairy products that farmers may be discouraged to such an extent by prices that are too low that that may destroy the whole breeding policy of farmers who have been breeding herds for many years. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that these powers should be granted to the Minister in respect of products which do not fall within the ambit of the Marketing Act.

The final matter I want to raise is the question of fluctuating prices. In this respect too, it is equally important for the necessary arrangements to exist. Last night we heard over the radio that the cattle stock of the country was insufficient and that we were heading for an eventual shortage of beef. If there are too many fluctuations in producers’ prices, production may be discouraged. It happens at times that there is too big a difference between the floor price and the average marketing price, while the average price yields a decent income, and production can be affected very adversely if prices subsequently slump to the floor.

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

For that reason I should like to give my very strong support to this legislation. We hope that it will be possible to find a solution to the objection of the Opposition. We agree and we believe that the Minister, in whose hands the powers to exercise this control are being placed, will be fair and will introduce control which will be to the benefit of the producers and the consumers.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we are again dealing with an amendment of the Marketing Act. Allow me to say at the outset that since I have been a member of this House it has happened quite a number of times, virtually every year, that the Marketing Act has had to be amended. Last year we consolidated the Marketing Act in order to make it readable. All of us expected that the Marketing Act had been placed on a sound basis and that it would be able to function properly. But for the very reason that this Government and the Minister maintain very close contact with the agricultural economy in South Africa, they have deemed it necessary to introduce this amendment this year. This amendment has a very favourable effect particularly on our highly perishable products which are being marketed mainly on our nine large municipal markets in the Republic. This applies to the vegetable and fruit industries. It is very difficult to introduce a scheme for the control of most of these products. Consequently surplus conditions develop on these nine large markets, which make it impossible for the producers to obtain a decent price for their products, especially in view of the fact that the markets are supplied during a specific period of production when all producers send their products to the market. The levies which may be imposed on the various products in terms of this amendment, enable the Minister to appoint certain interested persons to act on the open market and to support the prices in that way and, if necessary, even to buy some of these products themselves for re-distribution. We have the position in South Africa that people produce large quantities of a certain product within a particular area during a certain season which are sent to the nearest market. In view of the fact that the products have to be transported over long distances, it is not possible to bring about a balanced distribution of these products spread over the nine different markets in the Republic. I foresee, because of this amendment, that it will be possible to utilize the funds which the Minister has at his disposal in such a way that he may he able to subsidize certain things in connection with transport in order to encourage in this way the marketing of such products on other markets in that production area. We have a very specific example of this in the case of potatoes. As hon. members are aware, potatoes are already being controlled under a specific scheme. But there are many other products which are being marketed under similar circumstances as those under which potatoes are being marketed. Last year we had the position that the Potato Control Board was obliged to introduce transport subsidies when the market prices in Cape Town, for example, were higher than those in Johannesburg. Instead of the farmers of the Highveld marketing their products in Johannesburg, it is now possible for them to market their products in Cape Town as well, as the high costs of transport are being subsidized. The same principle applies also in respect of the marketing of tomatoes and other highly perishable products, i.e. the principle of bringing about a more balanced distribution by means of this fund.

In conclusion I should like to raise a second point which is also very important in connection with this amendment. This amendment creates the possibility of establishing a reserve for the possible introduction of a scheme for the marketing of a certain product. In this respect I should like to refer to the wheat industry in particular. There is a type of control scheme in respect of the wheat industry which we call a pooling scheme. The production of a certain commodity may possibly not be sufficient to justify the administrative costs in respect of the introduction of a pooling scheme. If levies were imposed in respect of a specific product over a long period, it would be possible to build up a fund in that way. We have, for example, the case of a product such as buckwheat. The annual production of buckwheat in the Republic is approximately between 300,000 and 400,000 bags. The number of bags produced does not, however, justify the introduction of a control scheme, particularly not a pooling scheme with its high costs. At present the introduction of some form of control is envisaged. When one starts a pooling scheme, one has to impose heavy levies on the producers in order to finance the administrative costs of such a pooling scheme. As soon as such a scheme is introduced the speculative dealers who market the product, are immediately intent on trying to outbid such a control scheme. The result of this is that a kind of resistance to the introduction of such a control scheme develops amongst producers because of the fact that high levies have to be introduced immediately in order to finance the administrative costs of such a scheme. Consequently I say that it is important to adopt this amendment before the House so that we may be able to eliminate this problem as well.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park raised two very important matters. In the first place he wanted an indication of what products would fall under this scheme. The other matter he raised was that the rights of the producers should not be denied.

Now I want to tell the hon. member that we cannot define all these products. I can mention a few to him, namely tomatoes, cabbages and pumpkins. During the implementation of this legislation in practice there will be surpluses. In that case, if a levy is imposed, we will have the means and the machinery of assisting the producers. The period over which the levy will be imposed, is another matter about which we cannot take any decision today. This we leave in the hands of the producers who will make representations to the Department through their agricultural unions. At that time attention will be given to the matter. In the past it happened that a specific market had surpluses. If we make this applicable to, say, tomatoes, that does not mean that it will be applicable to Cape Town, Johannesburg, and the other seven major marketing areas. It will only be applicable to the specific place where this problem arises. But, as a result of representations we have received from producers, we simply want to create the machinery at this stage already in order to make provision for this eventuality.

The other matter, i.e. the denial of the rights of the producers, is something about which all of us are concerned. But now I should like the hon. member for Newton Park to have regard to the way in which the potato scheme is operating at the moment. There is a Potato Board on which the producers have the majority vote; but this Board does not really have contact with the producers on the farms. It decides, for example, to impose a levy on a bag of potatoes. All these things are to the advantage of the producer. In times of surpluses there are times when the Potato Board has funds at its disposal to buy the potatoes itself, to withdraw the potatoes from a particular market, and to export them at a loss, and then to utilize the funds for stimulating the industry. The whole idea behind this legislation, which I can see the hon, member for Newton Park also wants, is to have peace and calm in an industry when one does at times have a surplus of perishable product. For this reason I feel that I do not want to say at this stage whether we will accept his amendment. I have not read his amendment as yet. When we have had the chance to examine his amendment, we shall see whether or not we shall accept it.

The hon. member for Karas asked for the assurance that this levy would not be implemented improperly. I want to tell the hon. member that the representations for this came from the agricultural unions. In the past these representations also came from them. The levy affords protection to products which are sometimes offered in large surplus quantities on the market.

The hon. member for Humansdorp asked for one board to be selected to act as agent for the various other boards. But to what board is one to allocate that duty? For example, one cannot say that it should be the Mealie Board. The board must have some association with the product. The hon. member for Bethal spoke of buckwheat. One can link control over the production of buckwheat to the Mealie Board, as the production of kaffircorn is at present linked to the Mealie Board. But surely one cannot link the production of pumpkins to the Mealie Board or the Wheat Board. They are not birds of a feather, or should I rather say, pips of a pumpkin.

The hon. member for Nelspruit mentioned a very important point, and that is that problems are created on the markets by people who market products of poor quality. One has a period during which the producers of tomatoes obtain a reasonable price of, say, from 60c to 70c per case. But then a person markets from 2,000 to 3,000 cases of rubbish and that, from an overall point of view, forces down the price of the product completely. I am pleased the hon. member made that point. We are trying to find ways and means of solving these things.

The hon. member for Bethal mentioned the case of buckwheat, to which we should also have regard. This is not something we can link to the part dealing with the levy. One cannot, after all, establish a buckwheat control board; we cannot have a control board for each product. This, however, gives us the opportunity of affording protection in this respect. The question merely is what it is to be called We are investigating these matters.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of 1956 (Act No. 13 of 1956) was primarily a consolidation of the Animal Diseases Act of 1911, which was probably one of the most important pieces of legislation ever placed on the Statute Book. This far-sightedness ensured that our livestock could be saved from dreaded diseases such as East Coast Fever and Scabies, which have virtually been eradicated. It has already been possible, with a good deal of success, to prevent various other diseases, which had already assumed vast proportions overseas, from entering the Republic. The measure of success which has been achieved can to a large extent be attributed to the statutory control which the Veterinary Services section of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has applied over the years with great diligence and zeal.

The Amendment Bill which is being laid before the hon. House to-day was drafted in conjunction with the South African Police as a result of the smuggling trade in poultry and brood eggs which has presumably assumed disturbing proportions recently and which constitutes a great disease threat to our country’s livestock. The proposed measures must be seen in the light of the outbreaks of disease which have occurred during the past few years, and which have already cost the country millions of rands. In this way, for example, the outbreak of Newcastle disease in the Western Cape in 1968 was a direct result of smuggled poultry. I may also add that the South African Agricultural Union and the South African Poultry Association are deeply concerned about the entire position and have recommended that urgent steps be taken to deal with the situation. In broad outline the principles contained in the Amendment Bill amount to the following: Firstly: Additional duties and penalties are now being imposed upon persons in control of conveyances arriving in the Republic. Of these persons it is now being expected that they should ensure that animals, parasites and infectious things on board such conveyances, or belonging to the crew of such conveyances, may in no way be removed without written authorization. In the past, when this did in fact happen, the defence of the person in control of the conveyance was that the crew had not executed his orders. These offences are now being made punishable, and in addition the onus is being placed on the person in control of the conveyance, as well as on the crew. This measure will possibly have the desired effect or curbing the smuggling to a large extent.

Secondly: Powers are now being requested, in circumstances where conveyances are being used to bring illegally imported animals, parasites and infectious things into the Republic illegally, to seize those conveyances and even to confiscate them. This drastic step has become necessary owing to the increasing use of private aircraft plying between the Republic and its neighbouring states. Passing ships are to an increasing extent making use of coastal vessels and helicopters to load or offload goods such as post, fresh vegetables and other essentials while these ships are in the territorial waters of the Republic. Unfortunately there were persons who availed themselves of these methods to introduce in the main brood eggs, poultry, fancy birds such as budgerigars, parrots, etc., into the Republic illegally and on a large scale. I can only hope that this measure will cause prospective smugglers to think twice before continuing their undesirable activities. The danger that diseases, introduced by illegal imports, may constitute can probably never be over-emphasized. Persons plying this smuggling trade are by no means concerned about the health of our livestock, for their main concern is private gain.

Thirdly: Additional powers are being granted to officers and police officers to enable them to take steps in cases where there is a presumption that animals have been smuggled in. Owners of such animals can be ordered to place them under official supervision until such time as certain investigations in regard to the origin of the animals have been completed. This measure is necessary because it is not always possible for the State to detain and to care for animals and their progeny. Practical problems are being experienced when a person smuggles in infectious things like brood eggs and the progeny thereof runs into thousands or even millions. In such cases, therefore, it need not be ordered that the animals be destroyed before sufficient information has been collected concerning the origin of the animal. Should there be insufficient reason for prosecution and confiscation the animals can therefore be returned to the owner without any real disruption having arisen. I may add that the Department is thoroughly aware of the large scale smuggling which is taking place, particularly with poultry and brood eggs. With the acquisition of the new statutory powers there will be no hesitation in taking steps against suspected persons, particularly in order to determine the origin of certain blood lines. It is also being provided that the premises where smuggled animals are found, may be declared quarantine stations, which means that adequate official control will be applied there.

Fourthly: Because progeny is a very important aspect in regard to smuggled animals, parasites and infectious things, it is necessary to make special provision for seizure thereof if it should be found that smuggling had in fact taken place. There have also been cases where animals were imported which were apparently healthy, but after a while the disease appeared. Some of the diseases have an exceptionally long incubation period, and the virus is borne in a latent or dormant state in the parent. When the progeny are bom they are also infected and the danger of disease becomes so much greater. That is why it is necessary, in these cases, to take steps against the progeny.

I hope that I will receive the support of the House for these measures, which are aimed at keeping our livestock as healthy as possible and preventing disease conditions from being caused by unauthorized imports.

Mr. Speaker, the confidence which the hon. the Deputy Minister expressed in his last sentence is certainly not misplaced because we on this side of the House will support the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill. It was particularly interesting to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister in how many ways smugglers can bring infected animals into South Africa. To draw the net closer about those people who have already caused so much damage, inter alia, with the outbreak of Newcastle disease last year, we are prepared to give the Minister our support. We on this side are thoroughly aware of the scope of the damage which animal diseases cause to South Africa’s stock industry annually. Any steps which may be taken to limit the damage, we on this side will be prepared to support. This legislation is the result of consultation and negotiation which took place with the Poultry Association and the South African Agricultural Union. Because they, too, agree with this measure, we are prepared to support the Minister. We want to join with him in expressing the hope that we will not have a repetition of the outbreak of Newcastle disease which we had last year in the Western Cape and in parts of the Transvaal. We received complaints from people who lost thousands of birds. I think it is the duty of every hon. member of this House to give his support to the Minister and the farmers in regard to steps which can be taken to prevent this kind of thing in South Africa. For that reason only we support the Minister. Extensive powers are being granted to the police and to customs officers here. We realize that. We see that conveyances can be confiscated when it is thought that these people may perhaps be involved in the smuggling trade. These wide powers are necessary, however, because this is an extremely important matter. Consequently we on this side of the House are prepared to support the Deputy Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the fact that the Opposition, as stated by the hon. member for Newton Park, supports this important Amendment Bill. Smugglers are unscrupulous people who stop at nothing to make money. As their ingenuity increases, it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to keep on coming forward with new measures to counteract their activities. We have the very good example of the outbreak and steps taken to counteract Newcastle disease last year, to which the Deputy Minister and the hon. member for Newton Park referred. It cost the Department and the State millions of rand. It could probably have been prevented if the powers contained in this measure had, at that stage already, been granted to the police. However, I want to congratulate the Department on having succeeded in such a relatively short time, in completely eradicating the disease here in the Western Cape. The steps which they took and the way in which the officials the veterinary surgeons, livestock inspectors, and all who assisted in counteracting this plague, acted, redounds to the credit of all. I think the Department deserves our congratulations for the competent and skilful way in which they dealt with this entire matter.

It is well known that the smuggling trade in poultry and brood eggs is increasing, and that it constitutes an increasingly grave danger to our country’s livestock. Consequently it has become necessary for very drastic steps to be taken. This measure contains very drastic powers. Certain kinds of conveyances can even be confiscated. However, I welcome the powers which are being granted, because we cannot take measures drastic enough to counteract this kind of thing. I do not know whether this means the end of the smuggling trade. As the smugglers display more ingenuity, so stricter steps will continually have to be taken. I want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and thank him for this legislation. Consequently I want to give this measure our complete support.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Newton Park very cordially for the attitude he adopted. It is to the advantage, not only of the poultry industry but also of the entire agricultural industry. The hon. member for Winburg has thanked the Department. The hon. member for South Coast has discussed this Bill with me on various occasions. We are aware of the problems we have to cope with. He also knows what difficulties the Department of Agricultural Technical Services are experiencing. They are aware that smuggling is going on, but they do not have the law on their side to act against such people. That is why I am pleased that the hon. members have received this Bill in such a fine spirit.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1967, during my Second Reading speech on the Immorality Amendment Bill, I informed this House that homosexuality was not unknown in our country and I said that it was not up to one person alone to cope with this problem. I then indicated that I would come to this House the following year with a measure which would serve as a basis for an investigation by a select committee. Last year I subsequently introduced the Immorality Amendment Bill in which provision was made, inter alia, to make the commission of certain deeds between persons of the same sex punishable. As hon. members know, I moved, before the Second Reading, that that Bill be referred to a select committee for investigation and report, the commission to have power to take evidence and call for papers, and with leave to submit an amended Bill. The amended Bill now before us, is the Bill submitted by the Committee.

With your leave, Mr. Speaker, and before I deal with the Bill, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the hon. member for Omaruru (Advocate Frank) and all the members of the Select Committee for the time and energy which they devoted to the investigation of this matter. I feel convinced that they had a very difficult and unenviable task, but I also feel convinced that they acquitted themselves very well of their task. I find it particularly gratifying that the recommendation of the Committee on such a difficult subject was unanimous.

The Bill, which has now been recommended by the Committee, differs considerably from the Bill which was originally referred to it for investigation, but this is understandable if we consider the scope and the nature of the evidence which was submitted to the Committee. The first clause in the Bill ought undoubtedly to receive wholehearted support since it is aimed at protecting our young boys against the commission of immoral or improper deeds up to an age at which their sexual orientation is regarded to have been completed, and when they are no longer so susceptible to seduction by more mature homosexuals. In the case of young girls it would appear that in general the sexual direction is already confirmed at an earlier age. For the sake of interest I want to mention that according to a Press report which appeared some time ago it was alleged that more than 100 self-confessed young homosexuals demonstrated in front of the Parliamentary building in The Hague for the abolition of a law prohibiting homosexual practices with juveniles. With the amendment which is now contained in clause 1 of the Bill, homosexuals are being unequivocally informed that rather than relax existing measures we are going to take stricter steps for the protection of our youth. Fortunately this amendment was not only the unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee, but it is understood that everyone who gave evidence in this connection was agreed that juveniles should be protected. There were of course, as is understandable, different opinions on what the age between the age group 16 to 21 should be up to which young boys should be protected against immoral or improper deeds, nevertheless 19 years appears to be the most suitable age in the light of considered opinion. The amendments in clause 1 (2) are merely consequential amendments which arise from the preceding amendment.

Clause 2 requires no lengthy argument. This clause deals primarily with specific kinds of articles which are used to give females sexual gratification in an unnatural way. The object is to get at the person who makes this type of article available for use rather than at the person in possession thereof. A prohibition on the manufacture, sale or supply of the article must inevitably lead to possession thereof also being made virtually impossible. With this prohibition young girls, will, inter alia, be prevented from being seduced into committing sexual deeds by older women, and in this way as well the young girls of our nation are being protected.

Clause 3 of the Bill is an important provision. I do not intend to give a survey of the wealth of evidence which was submitted to the Select Committee by experts, and by homosexuals themselves. That evidence is accesible to hon. members if they want to know more of the details in regard to this subject. Without in any way derogating from any existing legal rules, whether in common or in statutory law, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, without derogating from any existing legal rules, whether in common or in statutory law, it is envisaged with this clause to deal with the malpractices which occur at some homosexual gatherings. Evidence about the most immoral deeds imaginable, which were committed at some of these parties, is on record, and it can serve no purpose to emphasize this further. It appears from an analysis of the legal position that the various statutory provisions which are already contained in the Statute Book in regard to the commission of immoral deeds, plus the common law which according to a recent decision, still prohibits the commission of unnatural deeds between males, plus the new offence for which provision is now being made in clause 3 are, as far as we can see, comprehensive enough to counteract the evil with which we are dealing properly. It is particularly gratifying that the Committee did not recommend concessions in regard to the existing law on the matter concerned. There is apparently a tendency in some countries where prohibitions against homosexuality still exist to move in the direction of concessions. However, we cannot allow anything like that. With reference to the Press report which I mentioned earlier I want to mention that the Lower House in The Hague rejected a motion submitted on behalf of the demonstrating homosexuals to delete the appeal provision prohibiting sexual intercourse with a juvenile. I also want to mention that, according to another Press report, a petition was submitted to Parliament in New Zealand a few months ago in which it was requested that homosexual deeds between consenting adults in private should be legalized. The chairman of the petition committee subsequently informed Parliament that the committee had no recommendations to make and expressed his own personal opinion that he regarded homosexuality as repugnant and was amazed that there were church leaders who advocated a change in the Act. Therefore, Sir, we do not stand alone when we stand firm and make no concessions.

Clause 4 of the Bill contains the penal provision for the offences which are now being created by clauses 2 and 3, and is the same as for the commission of immoral deeds in public or enticement to the commission of such deeds.

Clause 5 repeals a pre-Union statutory provision in Natal in regard to the commission of gross immoral deeds between males. That provision now becomes unnecessary in the light of the existing statutory provisions, the common law and the offence for which provision is being made in clause 3.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I have covered the field.

The House will be indebted to the hon. the Minister for the summary of the Bill he has given us. I think the Minister very wisely decided that the original Bill should not be debated and decided upon in this House, but that this was particularly a matter which should go to a Select Committee with power to call evidence from all the people concerned, those affected by the Bill and those who could give expert evidence on the subject, especially the medical men and the psychiatrists. I think it is a tribute to the Select Committee that the Minister has accepted in toto the Bill they have submitted to the House. I am very pleased about that because I was a member of that Select Committee and we sat for six hours a week every week during the whole of the last session hearing the evidence of all the persons concerned, on either side of the fence, in this rather delicate and difficult matter. The Bill which the Select Committee has submitted to the House, and which is acceptable to the Minister, is one which is quite different from the original Bill. This subject was dealt with and there was a unanimous decision, and the Bill is, to use a legal expression, a true judgment according to the evidence. The evidence has been published and it is there for everyone to see.

I want to pay one word of tribute to the Chairman of that Select Committee. One seldom has a unanimous decision without some sort of guidance from the Chairman of such a Committee. The Minister has payed tribute to the hon. member for Omaruru as Chairman of that Committee, and I would like to pay tribute to him also on behalf of all the members of the Select Committee for the manner in which he chaired us and the manner in which he managed to get complete unanimity on this difficult and delicate subject which was entrusted to us. It was the proper thing to do to refer this Bill to a Select Committee and we are encouraged by the views expressed in the Press and elsewhere, which seem to confirm that the Select Committee has done the right and proper thing. Therefore we support this Bill completely and unanimously.

In the first instance I want to thank the hon. member for Durban (North) for the complimentary words he addressed to me, and also to the hon. Minister, and at the same time I want to thank the hon. member and all the other members of the Select Committee for the capable way, and the representative way in which they, for their part, dealt with the matter.

It must be borne in mind that this Committee was not appointed as a commission of inquiry into homosexualism and which had to bring out a report, but to examine a Bill which was introduced here in this House of Assembly, and then to submit an amended Bill, if the Committee deemed fit. But because the Committee did not bring out a report, and as a result of the wide interest in this matter, I now consider it my duty to give a short summary of the purport of the evidence submitted.

In its activities the Committee had to deal with very irksome questions of a most complicated nature. Inter alia, it appeared that it was not merely a question of the protection of morals, but that the sphere of application of criminal law came into the picture. In other words, what is the object of criminal law and what spheres of society should it cover? You can therefore realize, Sir, that the matters we were dealing with were extremely complicated.

The evidence indicated, firstly, that homosexual tendencies in a person are the result of the combination of hereditary factors and environmental conditions, but this hypothesis, however, is not conclusive because there is evidence to the effect that one child in a family may be a homosexual while other children from the same family, and from the same home circumstances, are not, which in turn indicates that there may also be cases where the hormone structure is the cause. In the light of the scientific knowledge we have to-day, it must be accepted that a person with confirmed homosexual tendencies can only be changed by treatment in extremely exceptional cases, and that an adult homosexual cannot change the nature of his homosexual urges. Then, according to the evidence, homosexualism is not confined to one language group or to certain races. Nor has it been increasing to any disturbing degree in recent years. We are more aware of it because there are more psychologists and psychiatrists available to-day and people are going to them with more confidence, and in addition we have the emergence of the sensation-seeking Press. In addition there was no evidence that lesbianism is being practised to such an extent or in such a way that it in itself justifies criminal sanctions. But according to police evidence, certain raids were carried out in 1966, following certain complaints, and it was established that parties, which could be described as shocking, were being held by homosexuals throughout the Republic on a large scale and that our legal system is without the necessary legislation to counteract these evils effectively. It was also the unanimous opinion of the witnesses that juveniles should be protected and that the present age limit of 16 years should be increased.

With few exceptions the Bill as submitted to the Committee was immediately regarded as undesirable by all the witnesses. It must be noted that the evidence was submitted by the most eminent authorities in this field in South Africa, including professors from the most well-known universities and the Government Departments concerned. I also want to thank these persons for having taken all the trouble to give evidence. We found it very valuable and we could not have performed our duties without that valuable evidence. It appeared that those few exceptional bodies or individuals who desired drastic legislation were not fully conversant with the present position of penal code, namely that sodomy and attempted sodomy is in fact an offence, and that even the commission of an unnatural deed by one male with another male is already an offence. To sum up, then, it appears that homosexualism is a psychological and social problem which can only be counteracted by making a thorough study of the causes thereof, and establishing a constructive programme of counsel and education of children by parents, teachers and even doctors. It would appear that there is a great deal to be done in respect of preventative work as regards adequate mental health services which are not linked to institutions. We all felt that homosexualism cannot in any respect be excused, and we found that even the most hard-baked homosexual would give anything to be able to live a normal life. Consequently we felt that the existing statutory sanctions should remain.

In the light of what I have just said, we submitted this Bill which is to-day before the House. Consequently provision is being made in the first instance for the age limit for juveniles to be increased from 16 to 19 years. As far as the articles are concerned, there was in fact evidence that these articles are in circulation, but not that the use thereof was creating a social evil or that it in fact was a threat to society. Consequently provision has been made to the effect that the articles may not be sold or manufactured. Then there is the other clause which deals with the immoral parties, and this is just about the entire purport of the Bill. It is my opinion that if this Bill is accepted like this, the penal provision in respect of homosexual activities ought to offer sufficient protection to society.

I thank the hon. member for Durban (North) for what he has just said. I have already expressed my gratitude to the Chairman, the hon. member for Omaruru and the Committee as a whole. In conclusion I just want to say that this is a very delicate subject we are dealing with, but that what I find gratifying is that the final statutory provisions have been passed unanimously by this House. In other words, what we are stipulating in the Bill has the approval of the representatives of the nation as a whole, and that says a great deal. Not only does it meet with the approval of the representatives of the nation, who did not act precipitately, but it also meets with their approval after all concerned in this matter had done their duty and had heard the evidence on this difficult subject. It gives me exceptional satisfaction, and I am grateful for what has been achieved at this stage, and I move the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—That the House do now adjourn.

Sir, the reason for the motion that the House adjourn appears to be that the Order Paper has completely collapsed.

The Opposition has collapsed.

Because you did not participate in the debate.

I do not think it is the function of the Opposition to keep the debate going for the convenience of the Government. To some extent this has been happening this morning. Mr. Speaker, I said that the Order Paper had collapsed because there is no business to go on with. Why is there no business to go on with?

Because there is no opposition.

There are no Ministers present in the House who can take charge of the business on the Order Paper. Where are those Ministers? Their primary and first function and duty is to be in this House to deal with the business for which they are responsible. There is no reason why they should be absent. Whatever their public responsibilities may be outside, the House comes first and there is no reason why we should be adjourning at this hour in order to accommodate the Government in their failure to go on with the business on the Order Paper.

The United Party asked that we should adjourn.

Sir, there has been excellent co-operation between the parties, and I pay tribute to the Leader of the House for the manner in which he has arranged the business of the House. There has been accommodation given both ways. We are not here to hold up the House unnecessarily. There has been evidence of this to-day, because where there have been agreed measures we have allowed stages of Bills to be taken. We have already allowed more than one stage of other legislation taken during this Session but when measures call for debate we are prepared to debate and argue with the Government on the legislation that they put forward. But the position is simply that this Government, through its Ministers, has little or no regard for Parliament. They absent themselves, when they are responsible for legislation which appears on the Order Paper, and it does not matter what happens in Parliament. They are away addressing public meetings. Perhaps some of them are away arranging a welcome committee to a certain Member of Parliament! That may be the reason for their absence, I do not know; but they are not here in Parliament where they should be and I hope that this sort of thing is not going to go on. Exactly the same sort of thing nearly happened a week ago. There have been other times when, with the assistance of the Opposition, the Government has been able to continue with the business on the Order Paper because the Opposition agreed to deal with measures which were not scheduled to come up for discussion. I do not believe that an Opposition should be put in that position.

Everything has gone through easily because there has been no opposition.

Everything has gone smoothly because there has been good co-operation from the Opposition. It is absolutely nonsense to say there has been no opposition. The Opposition are prepared to oppose where they do not agreed but they do not waste time unnecessarily when there is agreement. That has been our attitude. If some of the other Bills which appear on the Order Paper had come up for discussion to-day, we would not have been adjourning at this hour or for that matter on Monday or the next day. The hon. member must not tell us, therefore, that there has been no opposition. This Opposition is a responsible Opposition, in contrast to this irresponsible Government which allows its Ministers to go away when legislation of which they are in charge appears on the Order Paper. Sir, I hope that in future there will be some co-operation between Ministers and the Leader of the House. I do not blame the Leader of the House for this. It appears that Ministers simply go off without ascertaining first whether they have business in the House or not. As I said, they show a total disregard for Parliament and a total disregard for this democratic system under which we work, and the sooner the Ministers realize that the better.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whin on the Opposition side asks where the Ministers are.

Where are they?

I ask: Where is the Opposition?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion for the adjournment of the House.

Sir, on a previous occasion there was also an Opposition in this House, an Opposition that was smaller in numbers than this Opposition, but much wiser and stronger. Then we still had a political balance in this House.

What has this to do with the motion?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the motion. The adjournment of the House is the only matter under discussion.

Sir, I am going to confine myself to that: I am going to place it in the focus of attention here this afternoon. The hon. the Chief Whip on the other side said that he objected to the adjournment because the Ministers are not here, but if the Opposition had done its duty the Order Paper would not have been disposed of so soon, and we would not have had to adjourn. They are an irresponsible Opposition; they do not do their homework. All they do is to sit and wait; they think that members on our side will walk over to them in the same way as members on that side are walking over to our side. The entire political balance in this Parliament has been disturbed because we have such a rotten, weak Opposition.

Order!

Sir, look at today’s Order Paper; there are many important Bills on the Order Paper, and where is the contribution of the wonderful Opposition in South Africa? Hon. members on the other side have been in opposition for 21 years; their entire urge to do things has been blunted; they can only talk; they cannot do anything. Mr. Speaker, they used to be a talkative Opposition; now they cannot even talk any more; they cannot participate in the debate. Where is the constructive, positive contribution of the Opposition? No, they are completely paralyzed. Since they have been the Opposition, an enormous exodus has been taking place; their people are leaving them and those are the only ones remaining.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion. He may not digress too far from the motion.

May I ask the hon. the Chief Whip where his Ministers are?

Sir, is this not a strange question? Here we have important Bills on the Order Paper …

Where are the Ministers?

What about the votes?

Our Ministers are not like the old United Party Ministers of the old days. They lost contact with the public, but these Ministers do their work, not only here, but also outside Parliament. Sir, do you know what the trouble with the Opposition is? In the old days we did not have such a ridiculous spectacle on a Friday afternoon, in the days when men like Mr. Eglin and Mr. Lawrence were here. They fought like lions on the Opposition side and then one had an interchange of debate. But the powers of the Opposition have wasted away; they are a small group; they can no longer conduct a debate, and the people outside know that they cannot do so, and now they want to pose here as a pugnacious Opposition on a Friday afternoon, simply because there are no Ministers here. Sir, this fight is the greatest political sham fight one can get from an Opposition that does not fulfil the function of an Opposition. I say their urge to do things has been blunted. All their fingers have become thumbs; they were born tired; that is their difficulty. The Chief Whip on that side even wrote out his speech beforehand. He has been waiting for this opportunity all along, and after he had written out his speech, he read it out too. Sir, the hon. the Chief Whip is playing the leading role in this wonderful comedy, in this sham fight, and upon my word, he does not play it well!

Where are the Ministers?

The Government is here and the Ministers are here, and they will be here another 21 years to govern South Africa. I asked the hon. member, when they objected to the adjournment of the debate, whether we could not proceed with the Votes, but he was afraid of doing so; he said he objected to that. Is that not so?

You promised to deal with the matters on the Order Paper as published and you said that you would only go on with the Votes on Tuesday. That was the agreement. You were going to do legislation to-day.

Yes, even if we did come to an agreement, what is the position? The Chief Whip did not come to me; he went to the Parliamentary Leader. As Chief Whip he should have come to me as Chief Whip; that is the way for an Opposition to treat a Government. But because he was scared of negotiating with me he went to the Parliamentary Leader. [Laughter.] Sir, all the Chief Whip can do now is to laugh, but this is not a function of the Chief Whip; he should be serious. Surely the hon. the Chief Whip knows that we have never had difficulty in reaching agreement on certain matters; why then did he not come to me?

Where are your Ministers?

The hon. member should rather ask where Mr. Lewis is, who used to sit on his side.

Where is he this afternoon?

Where are your ex-Ministers?

Where are all the ex-U.P. members who used to sit on that side? Had they been in their places to-day, we would not have had this little game.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion now. He is very far from the motion.

But I am dealing with the motion, only in a rather …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion before the House. He cannot enter into the history of the Parties here.

I just want to say that there was quite enough work on the Order Paper for the whole afternoon and even for Monday as well, but we put forward such effective, excellent legislation that the Opposition is no longer opposing it. This just goes to show what a wonderful Government we are. We consider our legislative programme fully, and all we expected was to have received a few positive contributions from the other side, but these were not forthcoming, and instead of blaming themselves they are now blaming this wonderful Government.

Mr. Speaker, there is one simple issue before this House at this moment. We have been asked, on the motion of the hon. the Minister of Justice, to adjourn. The simple issue is: Why have we been asked to adjourn at 3.15 p.m. on a Friday afternoon? The simple answer is that the Ministers are not in this House so that we can continue with an Order Paper which has on it 23 items and a notice of motion. There is not a Minister here ready to take the measures which we now, as the Parliament of South Africa, wish to debate and to deal with. Where are the Minister to deal with them? They are not here, Sir. Who else is not here, Sir? The hon. members for Innesdal, Carletonville and Sunnyside are not here. [Interjections.] Where are they? They are all on a reception committee. And then we come to the Ministers. Where are they?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with it. We have passed over Item No. 10 on the Order Paper, because the agreement which the hon. the Chief Whip made was that we would deal with Item No. 10 on Tuesday. Whom do we have to deal with next under Item 10. We have to deal with the Minister of Finance, who is not ready, and who is away to-day.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to discuss an Order of the Day in respect of which there was an unopposed motion to let it stand over?

The hon. member is entitled to discuss anything on the Order Paper which is affected by this motion.

Mr. Speaker, we could be debating the chaos in the Department of the Minister of Finance, and the dissatisfaction amongst the staff. We could be debating the vote of no confidence in the Minister of Agriculture, which was adopted by the mealie producers. We could be dealing with …

Order! That is not relevant at all.

We could be dealing with the notice of motion of the Minister of Defence, namely the second notice of motion on the Order Paper. We are ready for it. Where is the Minister? Why could we not be dealing with that? It is on the Order Paper. Sir, we could be dealing with the next Vote, namely the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation. But where is he? He is giving the Senators sport, and he is not in this House. We could go right down the list. The simple fact is that there are no Ministers here to do their job. We are now being asked to adjourn this House. We are being asked not to do our duty as Members of Parliament, because the Government has no discipline amongst its Ministers. The Prime Minister cannot control his Ministers. The Prime Minister cannot see that his Ministers are here to do the job for which there is joint Cabinet responsibility under the leadership of the Leader of the House. Why is the Prime Minister unable to deal with his Ministers? Why does he not see that his Cabinet is doing its job? Is it because he has too many other things worrying him? Has he too many other internal problems to see that his own Ministers are ready to deal with their own legislation? Are they too busy with the domestic affairs of the Nationalist Party? Where is the Minister of Health?

We have two measures for the Minister of Health and of Mines. Where is he? He is making political speeches at church congresses. Why is he not here to deal with the items which fall under his jurisdiction? Here we have the Medical Schemes Amendment Bill, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Health. He could have been here. There is no reason why we should not be able to deal with this measure. Where is the Minister of Police? Where are all these Ministers? Where is the Minister who was going to deal with the next item, namely Item No. 12, the Committee Stage of the Rand Water Board Statues (Private) Act Amendment Bill? Mr. Speaker, we want to know about these Water Board S-t-a-t-u-e-s.

Mermaids.

We are having some suggestions here as to what sort of statues they will be. We do not know if they are statues in the game reserve or if they are mermaids. Here this item is on the Order Paper and the Minister is not here. Where is the Minister of Health? He is so busy talking about naughty little boys. Naughty little boys, Sir, who have to be spanked. Who is he spanking, Sir? He should not be spanking people. He should be here, telling us about these statues.

Where is the Minister of National Education? He was here earlier. The item the Minister of Police was to have dealt with, has been held over by agreement.

There is a Minister!

Yes, there is a Minister, Sir. We have just found a Minister! [Interjections.] Why can we not get on with his work? The hon. the Minister was obviously available, if he can walk into the House like this. I should like to ask, on a point of order, Sir, … [Interjections.]

He has gone.

See how easily one can dispose of Ministers! Look at the courage of our Minister of Defence. One only has to attack him for two minutes before he does an outward policy out of the Chamber! [Interjections.] How can South Africa be governed when a Minister can walk in, break the rules of the House as that hon. member is doing by standing in the passageway, and then walk out again. [Interjections.] Sir, at this rate we shall be able to clear out some more members. Then, when we come to vote, we shall be able to reject this motion by the hon. the Minister. This side will then carry on and give an example of how government should be carried out in South Africa. We are not going to be allowed the Friday after Ascension Day so that we can have a long week-end, because we are “too busy” to take off that Friday. Parliament cannot afford one day off to have a long week-end, from Thursday to Monday. No, we are too busy. We have to work. And now we are asked to adjourn at 3.15 p.m. on a Friday afternoon! We on this side of the House are here to do our duty in Parliament and not to waste the money of the taxpayer by adjourning half-way through the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that hon. members on the opposite side are objecting to the adjournment of this House. I find it strange because, after the hon. the Minister of Justice had moved the adjournment, the hon. member for North Rand, who is a Whip on the opposite side, seconded it. [Interjections.] The hon. the Whip who is handling this debate told me all morning that we had to adjourn when we reached that item. He told me so repeatedly. Now hon. members on the opposite side pretend that the Government is responsible for this state of affairs. But do you know who is really to be blamed for it? It is the hon. members on the opposite side. Just look, for example, at Orders of the Day Nos. 19 and 20, i.e. the Second Reading of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Bill, and the Second Reading of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill. We held these items over specifically because the Opposition, after these Bills had been on the Table of the House for two weeks, was not yet ready to deal with them. It is a disgrace. Hon. members opposite are not doing their homework. After this state of affairs had developed and we said that we wanted to deal with these Bills because the Minister had obligations not only in this House, but also outside, they came to us and asked us please not to deal with these Bills so soon. That is why we postponed them. [Interjections.] Those hon. members are committing a breach of faith now.

Order! All the hon. members cannot speak at the same time. They could perhaps all sing at the same time, but that will also be very much off key.

They should really know better. Sir, I say that, had the Opposition done their homework, we would not have been in this situation to-day. Had they done their homework, we could have dealt with those items I mentioned a moment ago. But the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration has many official duties outside.

Hon. members opposite asked where the Ministers were. Hon. members know as well as I do that the Ministers concerned with this legislation have urgent official commitments. Hon. members opposite know that if we should have proceeded with Order of the Day No. 10, i.e. the Resumption of the Committee Stage of the Appropriation Bill, they would have been in difficulties. We have enough Ministers to proceed with that. The hon. the Minister of Justice is sitting over there. I warned the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and various other Ministers, who at the moment are carrying at their duties in the Senate, that we might possibly need them here after this Order Paper had reached a certain stage. What was the attitude of those hon. members? They were not prepared to proceed with those items, because they had not done their homework. This is the situation, Mr. Speaker. What happened to the various Bills the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture dealt with this morning? This is important legislation. Marketing in South Africa is one of the most important matters affecting the farming community in this country. The hon. member for Newton Park made a half-hearted speech of approximately ten minutes. After that the United Party collapsed and this side of the House had six or seven speakers in a row. Hon. members opposite are not doing their duty. They do not know what their duty in this House and to the voters of South Africa is. That is why this state of affairs has arisen. If anyone is guilty in this connection it is hon. members on the opposite side. They should hang their heads in shame. If one thinks of their predecessors, one could say that they had eaten sour grapes and that the teeth of their children became blunt.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the procedure under discussion here.

Mr. Speaker, I challenge hon. members on the opposite side. We can proceed with the Appropriation Bill now. We have the Ministers here. Are they prepared to do this, yes or no? I am asking the hon. the Chief Whip of the United Party whether he is prepared to do this. Or is he the one who came here specially to request that we should not bring this on?

The hon. member invites us to go on with the Appropriation Bill. I should like to ask him what the agreement was in regard to this.

Now they are trying to hide behind an agreement. I think it is a reprehensible state of affairs if the Chief Whip on the opposite side tries to hide behind an agreement of which I am not aware.

What?

I am not aware of it. Hon. members on the opposite side are trying to make political capital out of this incident, but they will come a cropper as regards the voters of South Africa, who are aware of the fact that hon. members opposite are not fulfilling their function in this House. I say: Let the Opposition resign and let us get a better Opposition.

Motion put and the House divided.

During division:

Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you …

Order! The hon. member must rise if he wants to take a point of order.

I was under the impression that one could remain seated.

That rule has been changed.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to you, on a point of order, that the hon. member for North Rand seconded the motion on which we are now going to divide.

No seconder is required in the case of a motion of this nature.

But he expressed his support.

No, he did not. He did not say a word in the House in connection with the motion.

Result of division:

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