Mr. Speaker, I move—

That as it is in the public interest that the accounts of the Committee appointed to organize the Republic Festival, 1971, in Cape Town, a body which is not a statutory body, should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General, this House in terms of section 58 (2) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, hereby requires the Controller and Auditor-General to undertake the audit of such accounts.

Hon. members are aware that the Government has decided to take part in and to contribute to a Republic Festival in 1971, as it did in 1966. The Government has also decided that an amount not exceeding R1 million, including the services of its departments, will be spent on this. R10,000 has already been provided on the Vote of the Department of the Interior for this purpose. It is now deemed desirable that the Festival Committee should open a bank account and that the books and the accounts of Festival Committee should be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General. The Controller and Auditor-General is prepared to perform this service, but he can only do so by way of a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I regard it as desirable that that auditing should take place and that the House should authorize the Controller and Auditor-General to undertake the auditing of the books.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to take this opportunity to make a short statement. Yesterday, during the Committee Stage, there were objections on the part of the Opposition to the fact that the Minister appoints all the members of this Advisory Council, which they deemed undesirable. During the discussion I referred, inter alia, to the fact that it was very difficult to constitute this Council, because attention had to be given to so many different matters. I mentioned that the Council has to consist of English- and Afrikaans-speaking members, provincial members, men and women, and representatives of certain types of education, people who were still in the teaching profession, inter alia, leaders, etc. Then I made the following observation (I am quoting from Hansard)—

When I received my Hansard this morning I saw that I had been dealing in the debate yesterday with associations of the past. I was not prepared for that. It was a genuine error on my part in having made the allegation that Natal had sent me two Afrikaans names only, [interjections.] Yes, but I am now correcting it. The hon. members must not complain about it now. “To err is human, and to forgive divine.” I am now stating here that I made a mistake.

Your humanity astounds us!

Order!

That was in fact the case in respect of two other provinces, but not of Natal. After I checked it this morning I now want to state unequivocally here that it was an error on my part. It was not the case. Natal submitted two Afrikaans and two English names to me. As the reply to this question also reads, the two persons who were selected are Professor McMillan and Mr. Stumpf. They are the representatives of Natal in the present Council. I am therefore offering an apology for the error which was made.

We thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation which, naturally, is accepted, and accepted in the spirit in which it was given. These things do occur during the course of debate. I only wish I could say the same about this Bill, but unfortunately I cannot accept the Bill. At this stage of the passage of the Bill through the House one ought to have congratulated the Minister and ought to have expressed the hope that this Bill would operate satisfactorily in practice. However, I am afraid I cannot do that. This Bill disappoints us. As a matter of fact, I think this can be described as a lost opportunity. When the Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill he traced the history of the Bill and of Act 39 of 1967. Of course, we know this history only too well. We have for seven years been trying to produce this second leg, the first leg being the Bill of 1967. When the Minister chose his Advisory Council to which he referred earlier in the debate we were anxious that as many sections of the community as possible should be represented on it. As a matter of fact, that was the object of our amendment at that stage. We felt that there should not only be educationists, but also agriculturalists, industrialists, commercial men —that all these should have a share. Recently we had a request from the Transvaal Agricultural Association for them to be given representation on Education boards, and we had the Associated Chambers of Commerce coming with a similar request. In other words, these too felt there should be a broader representation. That was also the proposal of the De Villiers Commission. However, the Minister was not prepared to accept our suggestions. Instead, he chose his own Advisory Council. That was the first serious error he committed. What he should have done, was to have constituted a representative body to advise him. Had he done that, he would have been more successful. However, that was not done.

Then we had the Bill of 1967. We opposed that too, and we did so for a very good reason, which we stated. Here, now, we have come to the final stage, the scheme for the training of teachers. For him this has been, I think, a most unfortunate experience. First of all, we had the Bill of last year, a Bill which his own Advisory Council called a “contentious” Bill. Certainly, it was a bone of contention, not only in this House, but also to the whole community. Provincial administrations did not like it and the teaching profession did not like it. Eventually, at the close of last year’s session, we saw a rescue operation from the hon. the Prime Minister in deciding to appoint his own Commission, a commission now known as the Gericke Commission. As a result of the information collected by that commission and of the recommendations put forward the Minister has introduced this Bill which we are now discussing. Unfortunately, it appears that the Minister has not benefitted at all from experience, and not sufficiently from the advice he has had. This is a great pity because here we had an opportunity to appoint a professional council. Let us leave aside for the moment the immediate object of such a professional council. Had such a council been appointed, it could have formed the nucleus of a council for our teaching profession similar to the council we have for the medical profession, the legal profession and others. As I say, we had that opportunity. However, we lost it. Instead, the hon. the Minister enlarged his Education Advisory Council, a council which he appoints himself. I am not going to discuss now how he is going to do that. If he says he has to maintain a certain balance, well, possibly he has to. However, the balance which he has maintained in the past is not, I think, a satisfactory one. We feel that a council of this kind should be representative of the profession, of the universities and of other bodies, as we suggested seven years ago. But this is the Bill we have and this is the Bill, I suppose, the country will have to live with. The only thing the Minister can say about this Bill is that it is “a poor thing, an ill-favoured thing, but mine own”. It is not a Bill we can support. As I have said, we are very disappointed because we had looked forward to something creative, something which would have created opportunities for great development in the future. So, in the circumstances, we regret that we cannot accept this Bill in its present form. Therefore, we shall vote against it.

The display by hon. members on the opposite side during the Second Reading caused the following question to come involuntarily to mind: “Why such a negative contribution to a Bill which can ultimately only be to the benefit of the child, the teacher and our country?” The conclusion I came to was that they on their side of the House have such a shortage of teaching talent that there was simply nothing else they could do. At one stage or other in their lives, 15.8 per cent of the members on this side of the House were directly involved in the teaching profession. On that side of the House only 2.5 per cent of the members were directly involved in this profession. These suspicions of mine were confirmed even further by the latest attack by the hon. member for Kensington. He repeated that they would feel happier if provision were to be made for a registration board. In this connection I want to refer him to what the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, namely—

A further complaint, and this sums up all the complaints from that side of the House, is that the Council which is now going to be established will not be representative. From what the hon. member for Houghton said, for example, I deduced that she wanted this Council to have a comprehensive knowledge of all matters, including matters not connected with education. I readily concede that this is necessary. But the hon. Minister has in fact made provision for this. Section 4 (5) of the principal Act will now read as follows—

In other words, provision is being made here for the possible expansion of the scope of this Council by means of the appointment of people who have knowledge of, for example, economy. I am specifically mentioning economy because I want to return to it later. That is why I maintain that the arguments and objections from that side of the House were not very substantial ones, for specific provision is being made here for what they objected to.

In determining what the effect of this Bill will be, we must look for the main elements. One cannot but arrive at the conclusion that what was included in the terms of reference of the Gericke Commission is precisely reflected in this Bill. Every principle is being reflected here. Consequently the effects will also be the same. In the first place we note that this Bill completes the picture of a comprehensive national plan in respect of our education system. Various facets have already been pointed out. However, I want to point out in particular the significance of the recognition of preprimary education in this Bill. Never before was this concept embodied in an act of this Parliament. During the recess last year the hon. the Minister indicated that he had been advised that pre-primary education should also fall under the Provincial Administrations. He was also advised that it was a State responsibility. Why? It is because we are dealing here with the weal and woe and the salvation of future citizens of this country. With this the hon. the Minister has also intimated that he is thoroughly aware of the demands which our present social set-up makes on the working wife who has no option but to send her child to a nursery school. We are now using the word ‘‘pre-primary school”. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on coining this phrase. In this way he has at the same time given status to this new development in education. To my mind this is of great significance. I can give the assurance that persons and bodies who take an interest in pre-primary education have taken cognizance of this with acclamation.

In the second place, this Bill co-ordinates. It co-ordinates in the widest sense of the word. This becomes quite apparent from the constitution of the National Education Council. But, more than that, this Bill establishes a partnership in respect of our national education between the Minister, the Provinces, the universities, the colleges as well as the organized teachers’ associations. They are all members of this partnership. They are all entrusted with one ideal, viz. the establishment of a national teaching plan which will be only to the benefit of the child, of the teacher and of our country.

Though the Opposition does not feel very happy about the effects this Bill will have, I want to give them the assurance that to the best of my knowledge people affected by this are deeply impressed by this Bill. I was requested by the Orange Free State teachers’ association to convey their appreciation to the hon. the Minister. They asked me to point out specifically that they regard this amendment Bill as a positive attempt to combine the recommendations of the National Advisory Education Council and the Gericke Report. In fact, it is their view that this Bill includes in broad outline the principles of both approaches. Secondly, it is with confidence that they take cognizance of the indicated trend in this Bill, i.e. that the primary responsibility for all teacher training will be vested in the Minister of National Education, in terms of which all teacher training is being classified as higher education. They believe that this trend will in future be developed more strongly, on the recommendations of the future National Education Council. That is how these people feel! In addition they feel very happy about the share which the organized teaching profession is being allocated in one of the clauses, and, on the whole, they welcome the establishment of the National Education Council. That is what that association has to say. Sir, it is also very clear that this is not a partnership in which only the hon. the Minister will have a say. There is hardly any clause in the Bill which does not indicate that there will be consultation and advice. The Minister only determines policy after he has consulted with the Administrators, with the Committee of University Principals, and with the National Education Council.

Sir, to my mind this Bill also has the following significance and will have the following effects: It recognizes the requirements of the times, not only economic requirements, but also the demands made on our spiritual viability. Now, it is true that many people would like to argue that education is only there to serve the economy. And you know how that works out in practice; it works out that the ratio between the number of teachers and the number of children does not easily reflect a situation of a shortage of teachers, because the classes simply become larger. But over a number of years this situation is reflected in the standard, and as you know, Sir, the private sector is only too inclined to accept the situation in this way and to draw people with the necessary talent and ability from the teaching profession to supplement the private sector. This is the temptation placed in the way of the private sector, which it often gives in to. That is why I am reading between the lines here that this policy which is going to be formulated will take cognisance of this and that demands will in due course be made on the private sector as well, to serve education and not only to expect that education will serve the private sector. Such a tendency is being reflected in the fact that large business entrepreneurs are making bursaries and donations available to universities for the training of technologists as well as businessmen, but one does not often see—I at least have not seen this yet—that a donation is linked specifically to the training of teachers. Sir, I repeat that the time has probably come for this deficiency to be brought to the attention of the private sector.

Sir, I also referred previously to the demands being made on our spiritual viability. With the formulation of the previous Act, Act No. 39 of 1967, which is now amending this Bill, attention was clearly given to this matter when it was provided that the training and that the education of our children shall take place on the basis of a specific number of principles. Now that Act fits the policy the hon. the Minister has in mind in regard to the training of our teachers like a glove, because it is those teachers who must help mould the citizens of to-morrow, it is those teachers who must set an example for these children, and they must also be prepared for the demands made on them by the African context. To my mind it is a foregone conclusion that the child of today must be made aware of the demands made on him by Africa. We argue very easily that there are three million people here who have to serve 17 million in the technological and administrative fields, but we must think further afield than that. We must view this matter in the African context; we must view this number of Whites in relation to the rest of Africa, not in order to be imperialistic, but in order to offer the necessary guidance where this is required. That is why I maintain that it is necessary that our children should be inculcated with the requisite spiritual viability and dedication at school.

A further aspect which is as plain as a pikestaff is that the hon. the Minister has made it his objective to give attention to the status of the teacher. This appears from both speeches on the Second Reading and it also appears from legislation because, as this new section 4 (3) (c) states, this National Education Council shall also endeavour to uphold and promote respect for education and also for the teaching profession and the prestige of persons engaged in the teaching profession. What is envisaged with this is very clear. We want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance from this side of the House that that attempt will be supported, and I want to express the hope that the same reaction will emanate from that side of the House and also from those circles where they still have influence, because the hon. member for Houghton has expressed very explicitly her objections to the tendency and the failure on the part of certain people to support education. We want to express the hope that we will not merely receive criticism, but that they will, after this, accept the legislation and promise it their full support.

In conclusion, the following question: How is this partnership, to which I have just referred, going to work in practice? I am not offering any excuses for referring here to the situation in the Free State capital. The hon. member for Koedoespoort did the same and it was also quoted on occasion by other speakers. It works perfectly. We have the situation there that the college students are also students enrolled at universities for three first-year subjects, namely, Afrikaans, English and History. The Provincial Administration, which I stated was also a partner in this entire set-up, pays an annual amount of R25,000 to the university in order to provide free instruction to the college students in respect of these subjects. The principal of the Teachers Training College receives a professorate from the university, and he has representation on the senate and the senate committees of the university. The rector of the university is a member of the college council which exercises control over hostels, buildings and grounds. The Provincial Administration, in regard to which such a fuss was made here, has three representatives on the university council, which has during the past few years included a member of the Executive Committee and the Director of Education. The training for secondary teachers takes place for the most part at university, where a degree course, and subsequently the U.E.D. course is followed, and where a few three year diploma courses are also offered. The U.E.D. students, for the practical part of his work, receive training at the college in a few subjects such as visual education and coaching in the various types of sport, as well as religious instruction. For this they come to the college one day per week for four hour lessons. However, the college students act as a group with their own student council, and select their own sports teams. Academically, however, there is a partnership in the full sense of the word, and that is why I call this situation to witness in my prediction that this Bill ought to work in practice. The question remains whether it is in the interests of the child, the teacher and the country. We can say without fear of contradiction that this is the intention, and the honest intention at that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) has quoted figures which he feels indicate that a larger proportion of hon. members on his side of the House are concerned with education than is the case on this side of the House. All I can say is that it is quality that counts and I think that during the course of this debate, it has been shown that the Opposition has not been backward in speaking out on what it considers are matters of public concern, and also in pointing out, wherever possible, differences which it believes have appeared in this Bill from another Bill which was submitted by the Gericke Commission which was appointed by the State President.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) again referred to the fact that every principle of the Gericke Commission’s Bill had been embodied in this Bill, and I feel it is only fair to draw his attention to one major difference which I have with him, namely that the Gericke Commission’s Bill sought an independent teachers’ professional council. I do not agree that this Bill supplies the answer to that. The hon. member also quoted from bodies who offered their support, but it seems to me that there are some bodies, if one can believe the Press reports of yesterday and to-day, who are having very serious second thoughts on some of the facets of this Bill. I believe that when we reach this stage in a debate, we are entitled to ask ourselves who this Bill will satisfy.

Everybody.

The hon. member for Zululand says “everybody”. That hon. member has obviously not been listening to the arguments. I do not believe that this Bill satisfies the teaching profession. The hon. member for Kensington has made this point before and has pleaded earnestly for the establishment of the council as submitted by the Gericke Commission’s report. A great deal has been said about the council and comparison has been made often in regard to the councils of other statutory bodies. In particular the Medical and Dental Council and the Pharmacy Board have been referred to. I want to quote from the consolidated report on “The Teacher” where it refers specifically to the Medical Council and I think it is very closely related to this discussion. It says the following—

I want to endorse this statement because this is what the teaching profession is seeking, namely status. I believe that some form of legislation would enhance that status. I believe that the council embodied in the Gericke Report included many suggestions which the hon. the Minister has accepted in his Bill with which the new advisory council will deal. But when it was defining some of the functions of the South African Professional Council, the report said the following:

That was one of the functions which the council wanted specifically to be embodied in this Bill. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated that this will be one of the first changes or instructions that he would refer to the new council, namely to deal with the question of investigating the formation of a body for the registration of teachers. But I believe it will be more satisfactory and that the teachers themselves would have been more gratified if the hon. the Minister had allowed this particular portion of the Gericke Commission’s Bill to be embodied in this Bill. I know that the hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that there had been legal difficulties over certain aspects of the Bill, but I feel that the Gericke Commission must have had access to legal advice. They say so in the report and I quote “according to the law advisers who were consulted”.

I believe that this Bill leaves the teachers of South Africa in a very unique position, because now they are possibly the only profession or one of the few professions which has not the status of a properly constituted council of their own. I say this advisedly and I am open to correction, but when one takes other professions, and I refer again to doctors, dentists, chemists and druggists, architects, engineers, accountants, attorneys, advocates and surveyors, I believe that all these professions are subject to statutory control in some form and in many instances by bodies partly elected by themselves. This is a point which was made by the hon. member for Kensington and I believe it is a very important one. This is a point to which consideration has not been given in this particular Bill.

It has been agreed in discussions here that the status of the teacher is of primary importance. They lack certain advantages which other professions have. They lack the glamour of the medical profession with its new developments and scientific discoveries, and its personal achievements by famous medical men. They lack the glamour of the legal profession with its publicity for the successful lawyer who saves the life of an innocent or a guilty person.

You are making us feel quite good.

I am glad about that. I want to refer to one aspect of the Gericke Commission’s report which deals with this, because I feel it is important. The Gericke Commission’s report on p. 30 says:

The second point I come to in regard to my question whom will this Bill satisfy, is that I still have a big question mark with regard to the provinces themselves. I want to ask whether the provinces will be completely satisfied with the position as it will be, when this Bill becomes law. This Bill lays down that their future, as far as the training of secondary school teachers is concerned, is subject entirely to the whims of this hon. Minister and the advice of the council. It is important to consider that the provincial representation has been diminished as a result of the constitution of the new council. Originally, as I understand the composition of the council, under the 1967 Bill, nine of the 19 members were people who represented the interests of the provinces, but in the constitution of this new council, as I see the position, only nine out of 29 members, are members who represent the interests of the provinces. I believe that I can say correctly that the influence of the provinces in this council will be diminished. This is the council that will now advise the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister, acting on that advice, can decide the future of the training institutions under the control of the provinces. I said so yesterday and I say again, that I believe that the hon. the Minister is aware of these problems, that he is sympathetic and that he appreciates the contribution which the provinces have made. This hon. Minister will not always be the Minister of National Education. He cannot commit his successor to follow the same path which he in his wisdom may decree to follow. There is no doubt in my mind that the provinces have considerable vested interests in teachers’ training. I want to refer briefly to the consolidated report of the National Advisory Education Council in “The Teacher” which says that there are 33 institutions in which teachers are trained, of which eight are residential universities, in other words autonomous bodies, one a non-residential university, namely Unisa; 16 are colleges which are controlled by the provinces and eight are colleges which are controlled by the hon. the Minister of National Education. Of those eight colleges which are controlled by the hon. the Minister, four are colleges for Advanced Technical Education and the rest are other institutional organizations. Therefore, virtually a half of the number of institutions still fall under the control of the provinces at the present moment.

Now I want to refer to and deal briefly with a possible misunderstanding which may have arisen during this debate. The hon. the Minister is an urbane person, and I believe that he hopes to beguile his listeners with the smooth presentation of the spoken word. I want to say that we on this side of the House, are not easily beguiled. The hon. the Minister referred to the history of teacher training, and I suggest to the Minister that he must be accurate with his dates and his facts in this regard. I say this, because when he was claiming credit for this legislation I believe he put it a little out of perspective. The Minister said that the “Sappe” began in 1911 and by 1948 had achieved “absolutely nothing”. He said that during those “37 years” there was no progress in education. This is completely incorrect. For many years during that time there was not a “Sap” Government. The hon. the Minister should know this. The Minister’s party to which he owes allegiance was the Government for some time during that period of 37 years. Therefore, this remark creates an entirely wrong impression. Then the hon. the Minister waved his arms and said that since 1948 the whole reformation in education took place.

It has only started.

It has only started! Well, I want to point out to the hon. the Minister as an historic fact, that the Nationalist Government has had over 30 years out of the 58 years since Union in which to deal with this matter. All they have done, is to produce this Bill, which is still the subject of bitter discontent and controversy among some of his own people.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West), who was the only speaker on that side of the House, indicated that the present Bill was to meet the needs of the future. However, he did not go on to explain how this is to be done. He did make a statement that there was a system in the Orange Free State, where the Provincial Administration in consultation with the local university had evolved a system of teachers’ training which was working extremely well. Now I want to know, why was it not possible for the Minister to have merely extended this system which leaves the Provincial Administrations in control. They could quite well have adopted and used the system which the hon. member has praised so highly. Why did the hon. Minister not do this instead of taking the whole system of teachers’ training in South Africa under his own control? This is precisely the sort of thing we have been asking for. We have been asking for local control which is so important and which existed under the Provincial Administrations This system Should have been protected and preserved, whereas with this Bill we now have before us, the ultimate outcome, the practical result of what the Minister has done is that virtual total control will be concentrated in the department’s hands. This will be done by means of the appointments which the department will be making to the Education Council and the control over the policy which will be followed in the training of teachers by the universities in consultation with the Provincial Administrations.

Mr. Speaker, the need that the hon. the Minister has is to increase the status of the teacher as well as the supply of teachers. I think the two go hand-in-hand. The higher the status of the teacher and the more attractive the profession becomes, not only in a monetary fashion, but in the minds of the public, the greater the supply will be, particularly of male teachers. We raised the matter in the Second Reading debate. I wish to revert to this question of the status of the teacher and the division which the hon. the Minister has made between the university training for secondary teachers and the co-ordination between the training college and the university for pre-primary and primary teachers. I said in the Second Reading debate, and I wish to repeat it, that the net result of the Bill we have before us to-day is going to be virtually the exclusion or the elimination of the male teacher from primary school teaching, because now we have the lure of a university degree, which is attached to the secondary school teacher. Every male teacher has to care for his family. He has to go for the maximum he can get from the teaching profession in the way of salary and status. I believe this is something which is going to affect that very seriously, indeed.

We have always had it.

We have always had the problem, but the problem has not been defined so clearly as it is now going to be defined by the insistence of this legislation, that the secondary school teacher should be trained at the university. I believe that this is something to which the Minister is going to have to give his early attention. It is not simply something we are going to be able to leave to chance. We shall have to take some positive steps to attempt to redress that balance, because I do not think one can run the primary or the pre-primary school teaching in this country entirely or very largely on women teachers.

The problem of tying together the universities and the provincial training colleges exists. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) assures us it works very well in the Free State. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might indicate to us how he thinks this is going to be done. It is going to be a very difficult position, I believe, because one has vested interests in the provincial system and in the universities. There are local interests, in that there are training colleges and universities in Durban and Pietermaritzburg, which quite often do not see eye to eye on certain matters.

Your previous attitude was that co-operation would be virtually impossible.

My attitude is exactly that now. I want the Minister to tell me how he is going to overcome it. I wish the hon. member dealt with it when he was speaking, but he failed to do so.

I want to go on to one further point. In my mind this Bill as it is now, at the Third Reading, has given into the hands of the Minister a very potent instrument—I do not want to call it a weapon—which can be used to condition the minds of the whole school-going population of South Africa. I will deliberately refrain from using the word “indoctrination” because I hope that we have got past that word in the relationship to education here in South Africa. [Interjections.] I do not want to use that word. I want to put my case as fairly and as constructively as I possibly can. The problem as I see it is that, until one has obtained control of the teacher, it is impossible to impose a certain form of thought upon the pupil. I think that is the basic conception. This Bill gives into the hands of the Minister and the department the ability to determine what the teacher shall be taught. It is just as possible by leaving out fields of knowledge to determine what the child shall be taught as by insisting that the teacher shall teach certain things in the school. So I say that this is an extremely potent weapon indeed. I want to give a warning here this afternoon that it has to be handled with the utmost care by both sides. If it is handled wrongly by a government in power, they can then expect, and it is only fair enough to expect, that should there come a change of government, the other side might then be very well tempted to take advantage of the system which has been created by the government in power.

They are reaping the fruits now.

I utter the warning in the utmost sincerity. I have deliberately attempted to avoid being provocative to the hon. the Minister. I want this point to be taken very seriously indeed. [Interjections.] Whether the hon. member agrees that I succeeded or not, is his problem. I have tried and I have made the effort. I expect to be given credit for the sincerity of it. I wish to say again that this is a very potent instrument indeed which will have to be handled with the utmost responsibility by the hon. the Minister in order to ensure that the training of our teachers is not used as a potential weapon to determine the thought processes and patterns of the whole school-going population in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I doubt if I shall show the same tender delicacy as the hon. member for Mooi River. I have no doubt whatever that this Bill is an extension of the legislation which was fought very strongly in this House two or three years ago as far as teaching in schools is concerned. Indeed, there is a clause in the Bill which links the Teacher Training Bill absolutely with the existing principal Act dealing with the teaching of children. That is, of course, the new section 1B (1) (ii).

The missing link.

It is not missing, unfortunately. It is forged hard. It is there. It reads:

Did you take notice of the two reports?

Well, I had a good look at the original Act, just to remind myself …

But you did not take notice of the two reports.

I took notice of the two reports. I think I took more notice of them than the hon. the Minister did. The point is that I took a good look at the original Act, and I think one ought to be reminded of that particular section which deals with the determination of national education policy. Everybody has forgotten what it means. It shall have the character which the hon. the Minister determines; it shall have a broad national character; the mother tongue shall be the medium of instruction, and so on. All the fears that were expressed by the teaching profession and by people criticizing that Bill, that this might be linked with the old system of Christian National Education, have arisen again in terms of teacher training. I do not see why they should not have arisen in view of the fact that the new Bill completely links the whole idea of training the teacher to give effect to the policy to which everybody objected two or three years ago. That is one of my main reasons for not accepting this Bill at the Second Reading or the Third Reading. I have never really known why one has to stand up and reaffirm one’s views in this matter at the Third Reading, because we have reached a stage in our practice in the House that a Committee Stage is not made much use of, except by an hon. Minister himself, who wants to tighten up a few clauses in which he has already spotted a few loopholes, and maybe make one or two minor adjustments to make the administration a little easier. But as for accepting any suggestions across the floor of the House, these occasions are few and far between these days. As I say, I personally fail to see the necessity these days for framing any amendments in the Committee Stage, because one knows beforehand that no Minister on the Government benches is likely to accept any amendment unless it is completely inconsequential, unless it means nothing at all. I need not reiterate all the arguments I used at the Second Reading: every single one of them is applicable at the Third Reading; no change of any real importance has been introduced during the Committee Stage. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister talked about this as being the crown of education. I think he said that by way of interjection when one of the other members was speaking. Well, I have no doubt that this is a great day for him. He has always told us that he intended to introduce legislation into this House which would cover the whole ambit of teacher training and of school education and, of course, this Bill completes his programme, so no doubt it is a very great day for the hon. the Minister, but it is not a great day for those who disapprove of the principles that he has introduced into teacher training.

It will be a great day for the House and the country when he retires.

To my mind this Bill introduces the same uniform system that we are now having in school education. We do not yet know the full effects of the Act which was passed two or three years ago. The hon. the Minister said that I was really exaggerating; that one need not worry about this uniformity; that there would be plenty of diversity and that one must leave it to the character of the teachers themselves. Well, thank heavens, the teachers themselves are not readily going to be regimented, but nevertheless the very fact that this system implies this tight control over what the teacher shall teach and what the child shall learn, means that we are going to have uniformity introduced into the system. The whole idea of ministerial control over the interna of education is an idea that I do not readily accept at all. Sir, people have talked about the council and the way in which it is being constituted, and possibly those who plead for a professional council have a good argument, but, of course, I feel that there ought to be two councils. One cannot combine with an advisory council a professional council which deals with the conditions of service of teachers and the discipline of teachers—the sort of council that the medical professions has.

That is a professional council per se. That is one kind of council, and I do not think that that can combine with an advisory council on the broad aspects of education. The sort of council that I should have liked to see therefore is a council consisting not only of people in the profession of teaching itself, but also of people from different walks of life in South Africa, people who have to do with the whole national character of this country and its economic development and with the use to which the children presently at school will put their knowledge of the subjects that they are going to be taught by the teacher trainee and by the teacher himself. I think therefore that if anything one needs two councils, a professional council purely to deal with the conditions of service and discipline of teachers and one to give advice and to frame the structure of education in a much broader field. Sir, we spend a great deal of time in this House putting laws on the Statute Book that entrench discrimination entirely on the grounds of race; we do that day after day in this House. It is a pity that when we have the opportunity of introducing a limitation to the use of discrimination on any ground, we do not take advantage of it, and here I refer specifically to the absence of any limitation on the Minister’s powers to select teacher trainees. All our universities, with the exception of RAU and the new universities created recently, have some form of conscience clause about the admission of students. I think that when we introduce a Bill which gives the hon. the Minister the complete say over the selection of teacher trainees, we should have the same sort of conscience clause in this Bill that we have in the universities. The hon. the Minister smiles. [Interjections.] No, he is not smiling now. I think he is getting a bit bored with me; I do not blame him; I am a bit bored myself.

He is not the only one.

He smiled originally when I introduced this idea during the Second Reading. I think he thinks I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet about the subject, and I will be the first to admit that I have. Sir, people always say that if you have insight into your own madness you are not really very mad at all. Well, I do agree that I have a bee in my bonnet about this conscience clause, and I am very sorry indeed to see that there has been no limitation whatever on discrimination on the ground of religion as far as the acceptance of teacher trainees is concerned. For all these reasons and because this Bill in my opinion extends principles to which I objected when the Education Bill was introduced two or three years ago in this House, I must oppose the Third Reading.

I should like, at the very outset, to congratulate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) on the clear insight he displayed in this Third Reading debate. To the hon. member for Transkei in particular I would like to recommend that he should ascertain how the minds of our young people work, and how sound their ideas are. It would be a good thing for us older people to take note of their ideas. If the hon. member did so he would perhaps learn a little more about education. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) has, during the course of his speech, already replied to many of the questions put here.

However, I should still like to elaborate a little further on them. I want to say to the hon. member for Kensington that I appreciate his sober and consistent attitude. It is always a good thing to see a person remain consistent, although it sometimes caused me to feel a little inferior in this debate because I did my utmost to act in a didactic manner and to give a little instruction, but it does not seem as if the hon. member for Kensington, unlike the other members, wants to accept anything. All I asked him to accept was that the idea of this professional council which has been accepted here by hon. members on the opposite side as being the alfa and the omega, as his solution to all problems, has nowhere been recommended. Hon. members on that side adopt the attitude that such a professional council would elevate education into an eminent profession, and they compared it to the Nursing Council, the Medical Council, the Pharmacists Council and all the other professional councils. Sir, the hon. member for Kensington must pay careful attention now. Of the six education Departments there were only two who were in favour of a teachers’ council or a registration council —call it what you will—similar to what the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations wanted, being established. The whole idea is half-baked. At the moment the idea is impracticable.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for Durban (Berea), who is a pharmacist; would the pharmacists be satisfied to place 117 different certificates, which is the number that are valid at the moment in the teaching profession, on their professional register, or do they have certain standards in the Pharmacists Council? Sitting there is the hon. member for Durban (Central), a doctor, who himself served on the Medical Council. Only people with the minimum qualification of M.B., Ch.B are placed on the register of the Medical Council. They frown upon chiropractors, and people like that; they refuse to place them on their register. And I have no fault to find with that; I am not criticizing them. But now the hon. member, and other hon. members on that side regard it as the greatest sin that has ever been committed that teachers should not be allowed to have this professional council. Sir. I have here a telegram I received from the President of the Natal Teachers Society—

Sir, this is a complete misconception. There is no mention of a registration council or a teachers council in the report of the Gericke Commission. For that reason the proposed council is there to do the basic work first, to govern the training of teachers. That is why this telegram simply does not correspond to the facts. The hon. member for Berea does not think that the teachers associations support this matter.

May I ask a question?

I would like to finish my argument first. I am willing to answer any questions. I have stated that he thought the teachers as such were dissatisfied. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) gave us the opinion of the Free State Teachers’ Association. I have here the opinions of the Chairman of the S.A. Association for Technical and Vocational Education. This is a letter which is dated 30th April, and it reads as follows (translation)—

From the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations I heard nothing for or against the matter. From the S.A. Teachers’ Association of the Cape I heard nothing favourable or prejudicial. All that I know, and I can quite understand this, is that I am glad that these teachers’ associations have acted with such discretion as to keep themselves out of this matter altogether. The Transvaal Teachers’ Association sent that circular which was mentioned yesterday, but the circular contained only certain elements which, respectfully, makes me think that they did not view or approach this matter in its correct perspective. The hon. member for Berea also asks whether the provinces were satisfied. I have stated here repeatedly that there are three points of disagreement with the provinces. I shall mention the first, their joint memorandum, which is the least serious. They want all students who are being trained as teachers, at a university, or a college or anywhere else, to be selected, and selected by them because those future teachers will ultimately be teaching in their schools. Here we stated that they have the right of selection when they allocate bursaries to those persons. Obviously they can then carry out selection but if a person wants to study independently at a university and run the risk of not having the guarantee that he will one day get a post, then we can give them no rights of selection. The hon. members there are just as jealous as I am in regard to the autonomy of the universities.

The other point in regard to which we do not see eye to eye is that the training colleges also want to train secondary teachers, while the standpoint in this Bill is that secondary teachers should be trained at universities, and primary and other teachers at training colleges, provided that from a date to be determined by the Minister—and this he will of course do when he receives advice to the effect that this is the right time—such training will take place in close co-operation with the universities. We stated this standpoint clearly and unequivocally, and it is not the case as is being alleged by the hon. member for Kensington and Mooi River, and particularly by the hon. member for Mooi River, that we should effect a separation and train the teachers in certain categories. They maintain that we are effecting an unnatural separation, but the separation exists to-day and eventually with this Bill, the rapprochement among teachers’ colleges, training colleges and universities is going to become an accomplished fact. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (West) has already given that example of what the position in Bloemfontein is, how there is integration between the university, the training college and all bodies associated therewith. At some places there is an artificial separation, but the intention of this Bill is to ensure that these artificial barriers are broken down and that a proper coordination and correlation of subjects, etc., within the university and the training college together, will take place.

The third point in regard to which we differ with the provinces is merely the question of the professional council. They did not want to have it incorporated there, but not for the same reasons as those given by the Opposition. They simply did not want to have it incorporated because they felt it ought to be a separate action. We have furnished very good reasons as to why it cannot be, and I adhere to those reasons and do not want to repeat them.

Now I have already told the hon. member for Kensington, as well as the Committee, that the only difference between the Gericke Bill and this Bill we are discussing here as far as the professional council is concerned is the following All the points mentioned by the Gericke Bill in regard to the professional council have been included in this Bill, with the exception of one, which is where it is stated that this must be effected gradually. It is in fact an instruction to the Council to have a registration council. That we cannot do, because there will be many other instructions. Why should only this one instruction be given? Then I undertook to give this as the first instruction as soon as this new Council was functioning, i.e. to investigate properly and report on the possibility of establishing a registration council or a teachers’ council. I would just like to refer hon. members again to this report by the teachers, in which it is very clearly stated that from the findings from replies to a questionnaire to educational heads and from the standpoints expressed by various educational authorities it appeared that there was much difference of opinion in respect of the establishment of such a council. Although there is unanimity among educational authorities in regard to the functions which can be allocated to a registration council, these are insufficient to justify the recommendation of a registration council as a statutory body. Surely that is impossible. Dr. Gericke did not do so in his report either, but the hon. members keep on with this and keep on hammering away on this one note. They keep on saying that it is the one deficiency in the Bill. I say that, with the evidence at our disposal, this is impossible to accomplish at this stage, but I have declared myself to be personally in favour of it.

I have dealt with the one point of the hon. member for Mooi River, but he is also concerned about another point, namely that the profession of primary education will gradually be left in the hands of women only, and that men will not qualify themselves in this direction. I think the hon. member is making a big mistake: he is mistaken in his judgement. In fact, before the separation, and particularly as a result of the manpower shortage, it is an accomplished fact that an increasing number of women had been entering the profession. As a result of the shortage and the utilization of married women on a large scale, it is a fact that those numbers are increasing; and I am afraid that, whether we have this legislation or not, that natural course of events will continue until such time as we feel the manpower shortage to a lesser extent. We have a limited number of men available in this country, and there are many professions with posts which have to be filled. In other words, we need look for work for those we have. In any case, it is easier for people with university training to earn larger salaries in the private sector. These are all things we must take cognizance of. Primary school teachers are not prohibited from attending a university. In fact, they can even attend the training colleges with a bursary. There will be no watertight separation by saying that people on that side of the line must go to colleges and those on the other to universities. This may happen in future, and it will probably happen like this, but it cannot be attributed to this legislation.

There was another aspect which the hon. member approached very carefully. I agree with him because I think we have passed the stage where we can still level accusations at one another to the effect that there is indoctrination. By levelling such accusations we are insulting the teacher, and hon. members share my anxiety in wanting to protect their status. We are past that stage. That is why I appreciate the hon. member’s attitude. But now the hon. member is afraid that since the content of the courses, of the curricula, is going to be determined by the Minister, this could be a danger because the Minister is a political figure. But the hon. member must rid himself of that idea as well. After all, some one must proclaim these things. The Minister will not get up one morning and decide, just like that, that the history being taught at colleges and universities should include only those things which indicate how we thrashed the English. That does not happen. But more than that, the hon. member knows that the Act does not allow it. According to the Act everything must take place on the advice of these people. The Minister is only a formality, a person who must implement the advice he has received. He cannot amend that advice of his own accord. He must refer it back to the source of origin, with an indication of the reasons why he does not agree with it. Thus, the hon. member must not scare himself with these ghost stories. No such danger exists. At least, I am pleased that the hon. member stated that he trusts me, but that he does not know whether he can say the same of whoever succeeds me. But I can give him the assurance that the Nationalists will be governing this country for many years to come, and they all look the same.

What Nationalists? The verkramptes?

My successor will be the same kind of person I am. Lastly, the hon. member for Houghton. She rode a number of hobby-horses here. Firstly, she was concerned about section 2 of the original Act. But we argued about that clause for many hours in this Council Chamber in 1967. I do not think anybody can say that he has noticed anything wrong since the Act came into operation. In any case, I have not noticed anything myself which could be wrong. I said at the time that as far as the requirements of a broad national character of education was concerned, it was our own South African way of life and that as far as the Christian character was concerned, we would not force this upon anybody. But the hon. member is still concerned. The hon. member must not concern herself so much, because worrying makes one old.

You are telling me!

And one must take care not to get old, particularly if you are a pretty young woman. Of course, I am still talking to you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member said that in this legislation there should really have been a conscience clause so that inquiries could not be made into the religious convictions of students. But a thing like that is uncalled for at this stage, and I cannot really see what the hon. member envisaged by saving that. In any case, I am not concerned about it. The Act prescribes that the teacher must be trained to have the greatest respect for our own national heritage, for the Christian principles laid down in our Constitution, for mother tongue education—for the 10 principles laid down in the Act. In the same way as the child, the teacher will also have to learn to appreciate these things, to respect them and to convey them to the children they are teaching. That is all, and we simply cannot get past that. Everyone living in this Christian State will have to do this. We have never, never since the old Transvaal Republic, forced religious principles upon any group. On the contrary. There is the greatest degree of freedom of religious practice here. However, the State, in its Constitution, declared itself to be a Christian State, and that is why the broad Christian character of our national society must come into its own in the training of our teachers.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of the discussion of a very important piece of legislation. I am going to disappoint hon. members by not at this stage expressing my personal satisfaction at the fact that we have reached this stage with this Bill. I just want to conclude by saying that the full circle of a national pattern for education has been completed with this legislation. It was something we were lacking for many years. It was one of the things in regard to which a great difference of opinion originated in 1910 when the Union of South Africa was to be established.

There is still a great difference.

There is no longer any difference …

Are all agreed now?

There is no longer a difference of opinion; we have got over our differences. And in any case, we will eliminate any differences without the help of the hon. member for Durban (Point). He could, as far as this important matter was concerned, give no assistance. All he can do is be destructive, get up on a soap box, and make a noise. At the end of this debate I want to say that it is a privilege for the white population of South Africa to be able to share now, in the full sense, in a national pattern of education, a pattern which will not be enforced, but will be developed and gradually adjusted and, I predict, will be accepted in a few years time by the successors of members who are at present sitting in the Opposition benches. [Interjections.]

What about the Transvaal teachers?

But not by those who are causing such a rumpus now; we do not want people like that with us. In conclusion, I predict that everything which is being done in this House to-day will only be to the good of education and training in South Africa, and that it will in future redound to the credit of this House and the Government.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question just before he sits down? He indicated yesterday that he would instruct this council to investigate the possibility of establishing a registration committee. Should this council be in favour of such a committee, would he accept that recommendation and would he introduce legislation into this House?

I indicated yesterday that I was in favour of it; therefore I would accept it wholeheartedly.

And bring legislation to this House?

Order! The hon. member should resume his seat after he has put his question.

Motion put and the House Divided:

AYES—110: Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha. M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to make a speech. I am just being consequential and logical. I opposed the Second Reading because this affects the university colleges, i.e. newly created into universities by previous Bills passed during this Session. Therefore, I wish to record my objection also to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to this Bill. However, we would add that the time has now arrived for the Government to clarify the position in regard to universities generally. We do not object to this Bill. We have now established five universities for non-Whites, and, of course, we have universities for Whites. I think the time has arrived for the Government, and I should think especially for the hon. the Minister, to tell us what they have in mind for the future. Are these university colleges which are referred to in the Bill and are now to have representation on the Matriculation Board, to be developed into full universities or not? Or are they going to linger as they are lingering at the present as sub-departments of the Department of Bantu Administration, the Department of Coloured Affairs, and the Department of Indian Affairs? I think this Bill is an indication that we should have some information about the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say briefly that, of course, I do not agree with the hon. member that these non-white universities the legislation in respect of which was recently disposed of, are in any way inferior. On the contrary, they are undergoing a process of development, as the Ministers concerned put it. In terms of this process of development they will in the future have absolutely the same structure as the white universities. At the moment, however, it is not yet practicable.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I had dealt with the extension of control to local publications. In the time I still have at my disposal, I should like to express my remaining ideas in connection with this Bill. I want to deal in particular with those clauses dealing with control over the film industry.

We on this side of the House are particularly grateful for the fact that the hon. member for Green Point has no objection to these proposed amendments; especially the proposed amendments concerning the handling of appeals as regards the Film Board. In terms of the law as it stands, the position is that the delegate of the Minister may take a decision which is contrary to the decision of the Board. The situation remains that the ultimate responsibility for that decision rests on the Minister. In the light of circumstances I feel that this is not a very fair situation as changes of decisions in respect of films evoke considerable public reaction from time to time. The amendments contained in the proposed legislation allows of a much more realistic procedure being followed. When the Minister now instructs a person to inquiry into a matter, he may order the inquiry on the basis of two guiding lines. In the first instance he may order an inquiry on the grounds on which the Control Board has rejected the film. In the second instance the Minister may order the inquiry on the basis of the grounds on which the film company or film distributor has appealed. When the Minister’s representative has judged a film on those grounds and has presented his report on the matter, the Minister naturally is in a much better position and in a more informed position to take a decision. This places the Minister, as far as accepting responsibility for his decision is concerned, in a more equitable position. It goes further than this. If the Minister is not satisfied with the inquiry or with the report he has received, he is in the position that he himself may view that film. In addition to these two factors on which the film may be judged, i.e. the grounds of appeal of the distributors and the grounds on which a film has been rejected, the Minister has the further guiding line of the report of the representative deputed by him. Therefore it is possible for the Minister to have an overall picture when he is placed in the position of having to judge the film himself. I believe that this situation will not only place the Minister in a less vulnerable position but that the film industry as such ought to welcome this amendment wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I believe an alert democratic Parliament ought not to accept a Bill of this nature. This is a short Bill but in my opinion a dangerous one. I should like to make it clear, however, that here our concern is not the principle of control. While I was listening to certain members on the opposite side of this House, I gained the impression that they were of the opinion that we were opposed to the principle of control.

But you get stuck at the principle of the Bill.

No, that is not relevant. We have accepted the principle of control. We have always accepted that there should be control over what is published and over what films may be shown. That is generally acceptable. We have not debated against that. That has been accepted and is not relevant here. This Bill deals with the method of control. I should like to put it very clearly once again to the hon. members on the opposite side as well as to the hon. the Minister that we support the principle of control over publications and the release of films. It would be a sorry day if we had to land ourselves in the position of free reign being given to the marketing of any kind of filth in the field of books and films. Our objections to the Bill relate only to the method the Minister wants to add to the existing methods of control.

The Bill consists of three substantive clauses. To clause 3 we have no objection. Clause 2 will bring about an improvement in the present position. It has the effect that the Minister is going to be the final arbiter as regards any appeal in connection with any film. Whoever he may depute to go and see a film, he himself will have to take the final decision. This, within the framework of the Bill as it stands, is an improvement. We can call the Minister to account, but we cannot call to account in this House an outsider who has taken a decision. That is why I say this is an improvement within the framework of the law as it stands. However, our objection to this clause goes much deeper. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that here he is taking powers which may boomerang. In the course of time the hon. the Minister is going to find himself in an impossible situation because of the powers he is now acquiring in this legislation. My reason for saying this is the following: Several speakers complained quite rightly yesterday that it was very difficult at the present time to find sufficient films to which one could take one’s family. That is quite true and I endorse that, because I can testify to that from personal experience. Often one has a great deal of trouble to find a film to which one can take one’s children over the week-end. The reason for that is that most films shown to-day are only for persons over 18. That is quite true, but as I see it, this position will not become easier. It is going to become more and more difficult and the films coming from the countries from which we obtain our films at present will become more and more risqué. The reason is very simple. The reason is that in the countries in which these films are made, television has taken the place of the family cinema. The films shown outside, the ones people have to leave their homes to go and see, have to compete very keenly with the film presented over television for the whole family.

That is no argument.

I am still stating the difficulties the hon. the Minister is heading for as a result of the power granted to him by this Bill. As a result of very keen competition, the films made for screening in cinemas are becoming more risqué. A film mogul told me recently that the reason for so many appeals reaching the hon. the Minister at present was that it was not possible to obtain sufficient films of a non-contentious nature. As I see the matter, the position of the hon. the Minister is going to become more and more difficult as more and more of the new films will be rejected by the Board whereupon the hon. the Minister will be called in to act as arbiter and to decide whether or not he should allow the rejection to stand. I am sure that this matter will demand a great deal of the time of the Minister of the Interior. I believe that as a responsible Parliament we should try to avoid that. The Minister of the Interior is a busy man. Any Minister of the Interior, if he wants to be a good Minister, is of necessity a busy man, and I do not think that it is fair that the Minister should have to take these powers on his shoulders as well. The hon. the Minister deals with many matters, such as the issuing of passports and other matters in respect of which members of the public sometimes have to wait for months for decisions. The Minister should not be made the chief censor now. As I read this clause, the Minister is going to become the chief censor. He is going to be called in time and again to act as arbiter. As I have said, I do not think the position as it is going to be, will be fair towards him or towards the public. I would much rather have preferred to see the Minister introducing amending legislation in this House to free himself and the political machinery to which he is bound as Minister, from the question of censorship instead of introducing legislation involving him more closely in the machinery of censorship. One of the principal ways of doing this which we suggested in the past, was for the Minister to allow the same right of appeal in respect of films as that applicable in the case of books, i.e. the right to appeal to court. There has never been any sound reason why this cannot be done. I am merely mentioning this, because this is not the opportunity to discuss proposals of this nature in detail. There are other ways as well, but I want to explain to the hon. the Minister that the principal reason for our opposition to this Bill is that we are of the opinion that he should not take still more powers of censorship on his own shoulders. I want to make the prediction here that it will not be many years before the man who will hold the office of Minister of the Interior will find that his position had become so impossible that this entire system of censorship would have to be reviewed and would have to be de tached from the political machine to a greater extent. The hon. the Minister knows from his experience during the short time he has been in charge of this portfolio that small groups of professional complainers have already been formed. These people are very active. I grant them the same right to their own opinion as other people have, but the objection I have to them is that they are not so tolerant. They want to shape the whole world into their own mould. As sure as we are sitting here, if the political figure, i.e. the Minister, has to act as arbiter each time, he will of necessity become progressively more subject to the pressure of small political groups, and I do not think this is desirable. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would have learned the lesson by this time and that by this time he would have looked for another way out than this so as to free himself and the political machine from the task of censorship.

Our essential objection is to clause 1. In order to refresh the memories of hon. members, in view of the fact that this debate started yesterday, I want to mention that what clause 1 amounts to is that if the Publications Board finds that any edition of a publication which is published periodically is undesirable, and is of the opinion that any subsequent edition is likely to be undesirable, it may ban that periodical for good, i.e. until such time as it decides differently. In other words, the Board may in effect close the doors of any business purely on the grounds of its presumption that a publication which will come will be undesirable in the opinion of the Board. The hon. the Minister advanced the argument that this was a right which existed in connection with periodicals from abroad. This is correct, but there is a big difference between the two. As far as periodicals from abroad are concerned, the small numbers which come to South Africa are of little consequence. If these magazines were to be banned here, it would not affect the business concern. In terms of the numbers distributed over the whole world, those off-loaded here are few. When our own magazines, however, are banned for good, for as long as it pleases the Board to do so, and that purely on the ground of a presumption, that affects a man’s whole business, because such a person’s market does not extend beyond the borders of South Africa. Therefore in my opinion there is no comparison between the two cases. The power which the Board is now taking on itself, is much more serious than the power it has to ban periodicals from abroad in this country. This is not really our principal objection. We know that it is a sound principle that punishment should not be applied retrospectively. Here we have the principle that punishment is going to be applied prospectively. The two principles are exactly the same and the one is as unacceptable and wrong as the other. The Board may act purely on presumption and may apply punishment prospectively. I realize that no Board will be wilful and act in this way if there are no considerations for doing so. One understands this, but we cannot agree to new powers being given to the Board as it is constituted at the moment and with the code according to which the Board has to operate. If the functions and the constitution of the Board were of a different nature and divorced from the political machine of the Government, we could still have considered these powers, but we can most definitely not do so as things are at the moment. This is what I mean by that, because Clause 1 of the Bill affects the powers which the Board will now be given: the Board is now being given additional, drastic powers. Our objection is that the Board as it is constituted at the moment is too closely linked to the political machine. The Board consists of nine members and those nine members, plus the chairman, are appointed by the hon. the Minister. In other words, this entire body is appointed by a political machine. What I mean now is any board like this and not only the one we have at the moment. The Board is in such a position that it constantly has to have regard to the political pressure of small groups of extremists who are going to make things very difficult for the hon. the Minister as the Minister is responsible for the constitution of the entire Board. We think, and we said so at the time when the principal Act was under discussion, that this is an undesirable state of affairs. This makes it very difficult for the Board, because of the nature of its constitution, to pass a completely independent judgment on the good or evil of any specific matter. It has to have too much regard to the pressure exercised by small groups on the hon. the Minister. This is not the time and place to discuss how the Board is to be changed. That falls outside the scope of this debate which is one on an amending Bill. Because we are dealing with the Board which is so closely linked to the political machine, we cannot agree that it should be given wider and more drastic powers. We must also say that we do not feel happy about the constitution of the Board. I want to make it quite clear, however, that we do not have any one person in mind. To be quite frank, if I were to be asked unexpectedly to name the members of the Board, I would know that the chairman was Mr. Jannie Kruger, but I would not be able to mention all the other names. Therefore I am not dealing with the Board as individual persons. I am dealing with the group personality of the Board. I have been following the work of the Board for many years. I have been following particularly the lists of banned books. In my opinion the Board takes a much too rigid view of things, and this holds true particularly as far as books are concerned. One gains the impression that it is having too much regard to the effect which things may have on small pressure groups in this country. Especially as far as books are concerned, I am not at all easy in my mind about the way in which the Board is acting. We can mention scores of examples, but the Vote of the hon. the Minister lies ahead, and I hope that we shall have the opportunity, when this Vote comes up for discussion, to indicate what class of example we have in mind. This applies to books and films. Sometimes one is surprised about films which have been passed, but one also finds strange decisions in the opposite direction. In order to illustrate how I sum up the attitude of the Board, I just want to mention a case of a film I saw in Heidelberg, the student city, a year or more ago, when I was tired and went into a cinema. They were showing the film “Helga”. “Helga” is an educational film dealing with the process of birth. The film was for persons over 18 only, but it struck me that male and female students saw the film together. I could see no reason why adults should not see the film together, but on my return to South Africa it astonished me to find that men and women had to see that film separately. Sir, we South Africans are of German, Dutch, British and French descent. Why then are we so different to the nations whose descendants we are that we may not see something like that together? This is one example I want to mention and many examples can be mentioned of cases in which in my opinion the Board has deviated too far from what one may call Western values as they exist to-day. I do not think they align themselves closely enough with Western views. I think they are too partial to the attitude one finds in those countries where there is exaggerated control over the spirit of man. I have sympathy with the Board because the definition in the Act of what is undesirable is so narrow that this makes the Board’s task a very difficult one. I have this sympathy with the Board, but all things considered, we feel that there definitely is room for improving the entire system, but we are not happy that the improvements proposed by the Minister here, are acceptable to us as Parliament or that they will help the Minister to carry out his task more effectively.

Sir, after listening to this debate, I have come to the conclusion that it is very easy to discuss a subject such as this. This is so particularly in view of the fact that all of us think we have something to do with the matter from time to time. All of us are affected at some time by legislation of this nature, whether that is with regard to the books we read, the films we see or the gramophone records we hear. Consequently this subject is a popular and easy one to discuss. I came to the conclusion, particularly while I was listening to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), who is not present at the moment, that it actually was easier to discuss this subject if one knew very little about it. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that it is extremely difficult to implement this Act in practice. This is an extremely difficult matter as it is necessary to find standards and norms which will satisfy the largest possible numbers in our country. Sir, in recent times we have gained two words which are fairly popular and in everyday use, and within the limits of those words a way has to be found to satisfy as many people as possible. I want to point out that we have to do not only with people who have strict ethical and moral standards on the one hand and people who may perhaps have liberal standards in the moral sense on the other hand, but also with authors, with artists and with all the different levels of society. One has to try to satisfy them to the greatest extent. Just how unenviable this task is, was proved to me one evening when I invited a few hon. members of this House to attend a showing of a film which had been banned by the Publications Board. The name of the film itself, Sir, will more or less give you an indication of the subject matter; the film was called “The Chastity Belt”. After we had seen the film, we had the opportunity of meeting outside and discussing the film for a short while, and I want to give you the assurance, Sir, that the views on this film were so divergent that if we had to debate the matter we would possibly have had to come to blows in order to reach finality as to what the decision should be.

The Minister has to decide.

Yes, the final decision rests with me. To tell the honest truth, I went to see this film after an appeal had been lodged and because it left so much doubt in my mind I felt I should see it another time and on that occasion I invited members of this House to see it as well. [Interjections.] No, it was not a question of “let us look again and then ban it”; it was my duty and my task to give a final decision on the film, but because of the very fact that I had doubt in my own mind, I invited a few members to see the film with me, and the diversity of opinion expressed on that occasion convinced me of the involved nature of this matter. That is why I say that it is easy to discuss this matter, but that it is not so easy to implement the provisions of the Act. I think our task should be not only to satisfy the most narrow-minded but also those who hold different opinions, to satisfy the largest possible number of people and at the same time not to detract from the artistic merit of films or books or paintings or anything of this nature. The argument is often advanced, as hon. members know, that a variety of things should be allowed under the pretext of art. Therefore we must satisfy even the artist to a large extent.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point himself produced evidence here why criminal prosecutions were not successful. Yesterday he made reference here to a case which had been taken to court in connection with a book which had been rejected. He indicated that the Judges of the Supreme Court were divided—I think two to one. From there the case went to the Appeal Court and there the division was three to two. This merely proves how much difference of opinion there is in connection with this matter. The only argument advanced by the hon. member with regard to clause 1 was based on the number of criminal prosecutions which had been instituted in the past. I want to deal with this matter straight-away; the hon. member for Tygervallei did so to some extent yesterday when he quoted what Mr. Justice Marais had said with regard to this matter. Criminal prosecution simply is not an effective method and that is why so few prosecutions are instituted, and the small number of criminal prosecutions have absolutely no bearing on the number of cases where in the strict sense of the word, legal proceddings ought to have been instituted. I should like the hon. member for Green Point to analyse this matter for himself and to ask himself against whom legal proceedings should actually have been instituted. The Police must prosecute, but in the first place there must be a complainant and when one has a complainant and the Police arrive at the conclusion that legal proceedings should be instituted, one is still faced with this problem: Who should lay down the standards for the court; who should convince the court that a film, for example, should be rejected or approved?

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) is once again speaking of something about which he evidently has no knowledge, because in this case, it is the Police who have to prosecute. The Publications Board has a task of great magnitude, and I most definitely do not think that what the hon. member for Green Point meant was that the Publications Board should be used to convince the court of what was right or wrong; I do not think we can expect that of the Board. When one comes to court, one still has the same problem which the hon. member for Green Point mentioned: What is the opinion of the Judge? The functions of the Judge or the magistrate are widespread and cover all the activities of society; he does not keep abreast of the times as regards reading matter or films or something similar; he has to deal with various other things, and now all at once he is asked to determine whether the film or the book or the periodical or whatever it may be, contravenes the provisions of the Act. In all these circumstances, it is very clear to me that few criminal proceedings are instituted as that is an ineffective method of dealing with this matter. But now I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point, who was the main speaker, on the opposite side, what the principal object is as regards the establishment of the Publications Board and the censorship we apply in respect of magazines, books and films. What is the object we wish to achieve by those means?—I think the reply to that question is that our principal object is to keep away undesirable reading matter and films from readers and viewers and from our young people on whom these things may have an adverse effect. Surely the hon. member will agree with me that this is the ideal state of affairs, i.e. to keep undesirable reading matter or films from people. It is not our line of action to allow these things to be distributed first and then to decide at a later stage whether they are desirable or not. Our main idea is that undesirable reading matter or films should be kept from the public so that they may not have any adverse effect on our national life. The very reason why we are taking these powers in clause 1 is that we want to avoid that evil. We have our Publications Board. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who spoke immediately prior to me, expressed some dissatisfaction with the Publications Board. He did in fact say that he did not know the names of the members, except that of the chairman. The hon. member said the members of the Publications Board were appointed by the Minister, but he did not suggest any other way of constituting the Board.

I could not do so under this Bill.

Yes, I realize that, but I should like to tell the hon. member that if one is unable to point a finger at a person, one should not make accusations. If the hon. member had been able to say that this or that member of the Board was not doing his work or was incompetent, he would have had something to say, but I think it is unfair to make a veiled attack on the Publications Board when the hon. member does not even know who its members are.

Does the hon. the Minister not realize that one criticizes a board on the basis of its joint decisions? We do not know who handles what books.

If the hon. member was referring to the joint decision of the Board, he could have said that the standards applied by the Board were not the right ones, that the Board was too narrow-minded or too liberal, or whatever the case might be. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that during the short time I have been working with this Board, I have gained high respect for the Board. Last year when it was my task to look for a chairman for the Publications Board, I was very grateful when Mr. Jannie Kruger consented to become chairman. He is a man with outstanding academic qualifications and with particularly wide experience and he is a man who has proved in this short time that what he is making his prime object is not merely to let this Publications Board exist but to let it work for the purpose for which it has been established, i.e. to maintain a high standard as regards reading matter, or whatever is made available to the public, a standard which does not reflect a narrow-minded or a too severe attitude, but one which will satisfy, if possible, the vast majority of people. I want to tell you, Sir, that in appointing this Board to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout referred, we concentrate in the first place, on a variety of professional people, literary men and people who come from all walks of our national life, so as to provide guidance and direction as regards the decisions which have to be taken by that Board. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said he was not very satisfied with the methods I was following in this respect. I want to tell him that I wish I could have found another way as far as these films are concerned. I would have liked to have done so. But I have respect for this Board, and I want to say at once that one should not overlook the fact that this Publications Board devotes all its energies to one major task morning, noon and night, i.e. the work of the Publications Board. This is its task and this is what it concerns itself with every day of the year. My modest opinion is that there is no one in South Africa, from the Chief Justice down—and I say this without detracting from anyone’s good judgment—who is better able to decide on these matters than the Publications Board itself. If the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to come to my assistance in this regard, I would say let us abolish appeals in respect of films altogether. I do not want to be burdened with that work. I would be quite prepared, and as a matter of fact I am giving this serious consideration, to abolish this and to say that the Publications Board, which, in my opinion, is the most authoritative body of people as far as these matters are concerned and has most knowledge of all these matters, is in a much better position than anybody else to decide on all these matters.

That depends on who the members are.

Yes, but I accept, and I think hon. members opposite ought to accept, that the members of this Board are highly qualified academic people, people from different walks of life. A few people with legal training serve on the Board regularly, and from the nature of the case I accept that some of our best people serve on that Board, people holding the most balanced views. I say that this Board, which deals with these matters every day and all day long, is in a better position than anybody else to take decisions.

Why not allow appeals to court? Is that not something you might consider?

That is the very difficulty I should now like to indicate. The procedure which was followed in the past was that when a film had been rejected or when the company was not satisfied with the cuts which had been made in the film or with the restrictions which had been imposed on the film, the company had the right to appeal, i.e. to appeal to the Minister. But the procedure followed up to the present time was that I delegated my powers to somebody else. Suppose I delegated my powers to a Judge, with all respect to our judiciary, would you be prepared to tell me that such a Judge would be in a better position than the Publications Board to decide objectively, without his hearing any arguments except the submission of the company and the comments of the Publications Board? I say he is not in a better position than the Publications Board to take a decision. Unfortunately the Act imposes the task to decide on me. I say I am not in a better position than the Publications Board to take a decision. I admit this, but this is my responsibility and it may after all, be better that way as I am responsible to Parliament for what I do. Year after year I have to come to Parliament and give an account of what I have done. But what was done in the past? In the past we followed the procedure that when a film had been rejected, I delegated my powers to the chief magistrate who decided the matter. The chief magistrate either rejected or upheld the appeal, but now I say, in the first place, that such a chief magistrate or anybody else—I am not obliged to delegate my powers to the chief magistrate, I may delegate them to a Judge or, as the hon. member for Turffontein suggested, to a member of this House—is not in a better position than the Publications Board to take a decision.

But this has other far-reaching effects. As the position used to be, the chief magistrate took a decision and I did not even know about it. The appeal was rejected or upheld. Take, for example, the case of “Prudence and the Pill’. In that case the appeal was upheld. After I had delegated my powers to the chief magistrate to examine the matter, I never heard about the matter again. The next thing I knew was when it was reported in the newspapers that the appeal had been upheld. This is the position we used to have. As soon as I have delegated my powers to the magistrate, he is the one who takes the decision. Since I have become Minister and have been dealing with the Publications Board, I have made it my task to find contact with the Publications Board in an attempt to satisfy myself with the chairman and the members of the Board and to come to an understanding with them as to what our standards more or less ought to be and as to what things ought to be taken into consideration and as to what is right or wrong, with the result that to some extent there is some understanding between the Publications Board and I, the one who is responsible to Parliament. We know more or less what the norms and the standards are. But the magistrate or the Judge, or to whomsoever I may delegate my powers, does not have that understanding with the Publications Board. He does not have the same norms on the basis of which a decision has to be taken after all the various factors have been considered. He does not have the same understanding with the Publications Board. That is why we are introducing this amendment in clause 2. I want to say to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that if he is able to suggest something else which will be easier for me, I shall welcome his suggestion wholeheartedly. At the moment we are making provision that I appoint a person to see a film only when I myself am unable to do so, whereupon the person has to report to me. On the basis of that report I am then able to take a decision. But if I am still not satisfied that I can take a decision on the basis of that report, I may, of course, go and see the film myself. But I admit that this is an unsatisfactory state of affairs and my personal opinion is that there is one solution only, and that is that the decision of the Publications Board should be final. But I must say in all honesty, and with all respect to our judiciary, that I do not believe that our judiciary is in a better position than the Publications Board to take a decision. The hon. members themselves proved that to us. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) indicated yesterday that he was inclined to be narrow minded. He sent me a picture which he said we should never have allowed. Other hon. members on the opposite side asked whether he was silly because it was a nice picture.

He is a “verkrimpte”.

I say this to indicate that if one takes a matter on appeal, it is taken to one Judge and the decision of one Judge in respect of that matter may be different to that of another Judge. This is not a question of the interpretation of the Act; this is a question of the interpretation of norms which have nothing to do with the letter of the law.

But at least there still is a chance.

Yes, the Act more or less defines what is to be applied and it indicates the limits within which a decision has to be taken, but there may be a world of a difference between the judgment of one Judge and that of another as different Judges hold different views. But these circumstances one does not find to such a large extent in the case of the Publications Board.

The main objection actually was in respect of clause 1. I indicated some time ago, in connection with the objection of the hon. member for Green Point, that our prime object was to prevent undesirable reading matter reaching the public. If prosecution were effective, it might have been possible for one to force people to stay away from undesirable reading matter, but experience and the circumstances T have just mentioned show that in this case criminal prosecution does not work effectively.

But you are still making provision for prosecution.

Yes, but as I have told the hon. member, and as the hon. member for Tygervallei indicated when he quoted the words of Mr. Justice Kobie Marais, there are few prosecutions as prosecutions are not an effective way of taking action.

But Mr. Justice Marais referred to the old Act, the one which was in force prior to 1963.

Yes, that may be, but the hon. member for Green Point who is a lawyer will agree with me that there are numerous practical problems as the Police are the ones who have to prosecute. Does the hon. member expect the Police to decide when to prosecute? Who is going to lay down the norms we are to submit to the Judge? This simply is not an effective procedure. Consequently we feel that the Publications Board should have the right to follow the same line of action in respect of locally published series as we are following in respect of imported series. For example, I have here in front of me a booklet dated October, 1968. I understand this is no longer being published but it was called “The South African Buying Guide,” and one of the articles which appears in this publication is entitled “Contraception, Part I”. Honestly I do not have even the slightest inclination to show what appears in this publication to any member of this House. This is a locally published edition and the comments on this publication—I am reading from the Sunday Times of 3rd November, 1968—read as follows: “South Africa’s only consumer buying guide, a periodical which sets out to advise the public on the best buys of the day, this week foundered in a spate of criticism of an article comparing different methods of birth control”. Sir, if you look at this publication and see the drawings of the male and female organs, and you see on the outside “Contraception, Part I”, I think we have the right to assume that Part II will in all probability be as bad as this. What hon. members say is right; there are very many cases of this kind one can quote.

Was the publisher taken to court?

No, the firm ceased to exist. But there are many cases of this nature which I can mention to you, and it is true what the hon. member for Green Point and others said, and that is that what we in fact now want to do is to prohibit something before we have seen it, before we know what it contains. But I want hon. members to accept that the Publications Board is a responsible body and that these decisions which it takes, are not inflexible ones. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout and others pointed out that we could even close the doors of a business. That is so; there are steps which may be taken, but it is also correct that those steps and those decisions of the Publications Board may be reversed. In other words, the decisions of the Publications Board are not inflexible. I think hon. members will agree with me that it is correct that the decisions of the Publications Board should not be inflexible. The hon. members said we accepted the principle that there should be procedures for prohibiting undesirable publications, articles, etc. This actually is not quite correct, because whereas we accept the principle, the principle is applied on a limited basis only. I want to draw attention to the fact that newspapers which are members of the Press Union do not fall under the Publications Act at all and therefore they are completely at liberty to publish anything in the world. Of course, it is true that other steps can be taken against them, but the point I want to make is that whereas we have accepted this principle, the principle has as yet not been made applicable to all the publications which appear in South Africa.

The hon. member for Port Natal dealt with deposits. I just want to tell him that that is not a matter for my Department, but for the Department of Justice. The Department of the Interior is not the only one that is concerned in these matters. The Department of Customs and Excise is also concerned in this matter. Section 113 of the Customs Act, Act No. 91 of 1964, provides specifically what articles may be admitted and what articles may not be admitted, inter alia—

Officials have specially been appointed in the Department of Customs and Excise to refer publications which are regarded as undesirable, to the Publications Board. When undesirable reading matter is referred to the Publications Board, this body conducts the necessary inquiry and takes the necessary decision.

I do not know whether there is any need for me to go into the specific arguments of other hon. members. The hon. member for Turffontein suggested that I should delegate some of my powers to Members of Parliament. [Interjections.] This might work if I need only delegate them to one Member of Parliament, but if I had to delegate them to more than one, we would experience many difficulties. The only other thing I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein is that we do have control over gramophone records.

In conclusion I want to draw the attention of this House to the fact that the activities of the Publications Board are very extensive. As a matter of fact, its work is of such magnitude that we shall have to give consideration to enlarging the Board. We have a board consisting of nine members, although there are 11 at present. Then we also have a panel of members whose services are called in on a temporary basis to assist the Board with its work. The tendency is, however, to go progressively further as regards these things which in our opinion are not beneficial to the morals of our nation. At the moment the Board is still doing its utmost to lay down the desired norms and standards, and I am firmly convinced that the powers we are giving to the Board in this legislation, can only be to the advantage of our nation.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—104: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch. J. A.; Schoeman. B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit. H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers. J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg. M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J. Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen. P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Vilker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo. A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill contains amendments to the Public Service Act. 1957, with the main object of creating a Bureau of Public Security and of delegating certain powers, functions and duties to the Minister who is responsible for the Bureau. In view of the clarity of the Bill, I do not intend to give a lengthy account of the operation of the Bill in detail. The times we live in necessitate steps being taken to ensure the safety of the State, both internally and externally. Various Departments have sections whose special duty it is to watch over security in some respect or other. Up to now, however, there has been no effective co-ordination of the functions of the various organizations concerned in this, apart from a Security Adviser being appointed for this purpose. But one person is not able to cope with all the duties, and it is therefore necessary to create a Department for this purpose.

The functions of such an organization are necessarily of a confidential nature, which necessitates avoiding any unnecessary disclosure of such functions. With the foregoing in mind and since the powers, functions and duties which the amendments propose to entrust to the Minister concerned, are in the case of other Departments powers, functions and duties entrusted to the Public Service Commission or the Minister responsible for the Departments concerned by the Public Service Act, 1957, it is deemed expedient to amend the said Act in order to make provision for these matters. In broad outline the amendments propose to vest the Minister who is responsible for the Bureau with power, inter alia, to create posts, to appoint persons or officials to them, to terminate their services, to lay down conditions of service in respect of officers or persons in the employ of the Bureau, to make regulations and in general to do what is necessary in order to enable the Bureau to function. This briefly is the scope of the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has outlined in a few words the necessity for the establishment of a bureau of this kind, but I do riot feel that the Bill should pass through the House without our comparing these provisions with some of those in other countries, and looking to possibly some of the dangers that can arise from a development of this kind. We shall support the legislation, but at the same time I think it is necessary that we should look at the matter a little more closely.

I know there are examples in many other countries on which this legislation can be based and doubtless is based. I know for instance that there is a central bureau in Holland, and I believe also in France. In the United States of America you have the State Department, the Defence Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, all three gathering information, information which to be useful must reach the policy makers quickly and accurately and in a clear form. As far as I have been able to discover, the Central Intelligence Agency was established as a result of legislation introduced in 1947 by President Truman. He made much the same sort of speech as the hon. the Minister has made and indicated that it was necessary to provide a mechanism for co-ordinating the work of producing intelligence estimates so that the President, the Secretary of State and the defence heads could have before them a single, reasoned analysis. And, Sir, if you are interested in this matter, you will find that President Truman in his memoirs, dealt with the need for such mechanism. He said—

He went on to describe the system which was used. He indicated how the information that was gathered was co-ordinated, how the matter was discussed under the direction of the chief of the Central Intelligence Agency with the National Security Council. Reports were passed on as they went along. They made final recommendations of policy to the President, who had to make the final decisions. And of course it is vital that the information should get to the President and the relevant policy makers quickly. Therefore there was provision in the United States of America for them to get into touch, not only with the President, but with the chiefs of staff and the secretaries of state concerned within a very Short time. Anyone who reads the memoirs of Allen Dulles who was Director of the C.I.A. will see that a system was evolved which resulted in Allen Dulles being able to record that there was not a single instance during his service as director when he failed to reach the President in a matter of minutes with any item of intelligence he felt was of maximum importance.

Now, Sir, I have looked through this Bill. I know that much can be done as a result of this Bill which we will not hear about. I do hope that in building up this system there will be provision made for this rapid communication which is so vital to the success of an agency of this kind.

We are going to give the hon. the Minister under this Bill power to recruit personnel in an entirely different way from that in which it is done by the Public Service Commission. That does not surprise me as it is done in most bureaux of this kind. But obviously we have got to get personnel who are very carefully screened and very highly and carefully selected. I do hope that it will be on the basis of a long-term association allowing for the development of experience and that there will also be conditions of service which will ensure the very best possible people being made available. I am told that the C.I.A. does not recruit through the normal channels, but goes out and looks for its people at the universities and in other works of life, and that it gives very special benefits to its employees. I believe they have the same insurance and retirement benefits as the Civil Service. I do not know what the provision will be here. They do get very special benefits, which I think are important to attract people into a service of this kind.

When one creates an agency which is under the sole control of a Minister, however reliable that Minister may be, dangers do exist. Dangers exist in that agencies of this kind have tended to make foreign policy for the State concerned, that they cut across programmes laid down by the President and by the State Department and that they even interfere with ambassadors and foreign service officers abroad. Because these dangers do exist and are popularly believed in many quarters to exist, I think it is right to place on record, on behalf of the Opposition, that in so far as I have been able to get at the truth, these myths are totally untrue. It was my good fortune to meet Allen Dulles myself, when we discussed this matter at some length. I think the statement in his book is of importance where he says categorically—

I think that is important and I hope that that will always be the position here in the Republic.

We are new to this game, and as a result of this legislation it is unlikely that we will have an opportunity of discussing anything that happens in reference to this department again. Because we have not had the experience of certain other countries, we are new to the game. Perhaps we are fortunate not to have had that experience, because the experience in most cases has been forced on other countries as a result of dangers, trials and tribulations to which they were exposed. It is encouraging to note that we are learning fast. I believe that we could perhaps learn even faster by studying the methods of others. I hope that attention will be given to that in the work of this bureau. Sometimes it is an advantage to start late as long as you are prepared to be modern and not to be hidebound by worn-out theories. I believe that in America the C.I.A. advanced very quickly, above all, owing to its ability to adopt the most modern instruments of technology to its purposes. It was a daring pioneer in many fields. I hope we shall be daring pioneers in this field as well and that we will be spared some of the mishaps and some of the successful results of the activities of mischief-makers with which other organizations of this kind have been plagued. We know that the dangers with which we are faced in the Republic are manifold and we know too that it has been a major part of communist strategy in the cold war to infiltrate and try to penetrate states that they have picked out as their targets, to exploit secret weaknesses, to try to infiltrate and undermine the security of the armed forces by clandestine attack. We have to decide, as every free people has to decide, what we are going to do about the secret underground creeping techniques such as undermined Czechoslovakia in 1948, and again not so long ago, and such as were used to great effect in Cuba when Castro was installed by a lot of people who have since either lost their lives or been imprisoned by the very man they nut into power, not realizing that he was a communist.

I suppose that every free people, while knowing of these dangers, is suspicious of Government secrecy. They abhor it, Sir. They feel there is something sinister about it, and that it is dangerous when governments shroud their activities. They feel that it may be an entering wedge for autocratic developments, or a means of covering up their mistakes. Sometimes it is difficult to persuade these people that, in the national interest, there are some things that have to be kept from them. I believe that is the case here, and that is why we are supporting the Bill. Harry Howe Ransom, in his study on central intelligence and national security, puts the question this way—

I want to say that, while we support this Bill, a great responsibility is placed on the Government as a result of this legislation. A great responsibility is placed on the Minister concerned. I believe that in this case the Minister concerned will be the Prime Minister, but it may not always be so. I think it is right that I should express the hope that these few thoughts will always be borne in mind in the application of this legislation. I support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to express my deepest appreciation to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he handled the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I think it is good and desirable that we should deal with a Bill such as this on such a high level of debating as we have in fact had to-day. For that I should like to express my deepest appreciation to him. I want to agree with him right at the outset that great responsibilities will be imposed upon the Government as a result of this legislation. Great responsibilities will also be imposed upon the Minister concerned. That Minister will be responsible for the administration of this bureau. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is right when he says the Bill makes provision for the State President to appoint a Minister who will be vested with certain powers in order to administer this bureau. In our case it will be the Prime Minister. I believe the future will show us that these responsibilities that will be imposed upon the Prime Minister, or upon any other Minister who may administer the bureau in future, will be carried out properly. I believe that we shall not be dissatisfied with it in the future. I should like to point out to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that although we are now establishing a new Department of State Security, which is defined in the Bill, it is not quite correct to say that it is something new to us. At the beginning of this session already a few questions were asked, especially after the Budget was presented to this House. When it was indicated that a fairly large amount appeared on the Vote of the Prime Minister and also that the amount in respect of Defence, but not so much in the case of Police, had been considerably reduced, it was envisaged at that time already that something such as is coming now would be established. Provision is now being made for this bureau, but I want to repeat that it is not something completely new to us. I think that the Prime Minister said by way of reply to a question in this House that this amount had increased in this way because it also made provision for salaries of staff, for which provision had not been made under secret funds before. We did have secret funds before which were spent from time to time in order to obtain certain information. It is no use hiding it, because I think it is common cause, and we know about it. These were funds we could not disclose. The salaries of the staff themselves, however, fell under other departments. Of course, now that we are establishing this new department, the salaries are also included in the estimates which provide for the administration of this department. That is why the amount for which provision has been made is so much larger. That does not mean to say that new people have been appointed, but it means that the officials that used to be paid by the other departments will now be paid by this department. I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance that we have had a very efficient intelligence service up to now. But, as I said in my introductory speech, and as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition emphasized, the accent here falls on co-ordination. It is especially for the purposes of co-ordination that this Department has been established. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition expressed his misgivings about the staff. He is quite correct when he says that the staff in a department such as this must be of the highest calibre. It is essential that they should be of the highest calibre. I want to give the hon. the Leader of the Opposition the assurance, however, that the staff of the various departments whom we have been using for these purposes in the past were in fact good staff. It goes without saying that we cannot simply recruit ordinary staff to do this work. We shall use staff from the other departments who are already conversant with this kind of work. They will be people who already possess the necessary knowledge, who already have the experience, people who have shown that they have the ability to do this kind of work. I do not want to draw comparisons. I do not want to venture a comparison between what we are envisaging here and, for example, the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America. I should not like to do that, because I think the various countries are not really comparable with one another. In respect of certain matters our position in the world is probably comparable, but in respect of many other matters our position in the world is not comparable with that of the United States of America. But one thing is as plain as a pikestaff, Sir, and that is that information is of primary importance in any country in the world to-day. Information is of the greatest importance. One can obtain it in various ways. One can obtain it by covert methods, by public methods, or even by reading newspapers and collecting information. The fact remains that information is of primary importance to any country in the world in determining its course of action. We have knowledge of this as a result of the line of action adopted by us towards our neighbours in the North, and as a result of the actions of terrorists in South Africa. It is of the utmost importance to us to know a few weeks in advance what the movements of these people are possibly going to be. It is precisely in order to obtain that kind of information, which is so important to any country in the world in order that it may prepare itself as effectively as possible, that it was decided by the Government that these various intelligence services should be coordinated. That is why I am saying that “coordination” is the word on which the greatest emphasis much be placed when it comes to this service which is to be rendered in future. I hope and trust that this will only bring good to South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 13 of the Board of Trade and Industries Act, 1944, all reports and recommendations made by the board on any matter must be tabled in Parliament by the Minister of Economic Affairs as indicated in the Act. This must be done within one month after the receipt of the report or recommendation by the Minister if Parliament is in session, or otherwise within one month after the commencement of the next ensuing Parliamentary session.

This legal provision causes the following problems—

1. (a) For obvious reasons no report or recommendation by the board, particularly on customs and excise tariffs, can be tabled before having been implemented by way of, inter alia, Government Notices in the Government Gazette. To be able to proceed to this step entails a comparatively lengthy procedure, especially in cases where G.A.T.T. determinations are involved. As a result it sometimes happens that reports can only be tabled months after they have been received by the Minister. In this way, owing to unavoidable circumstances, the Act is contravened by the authorities.
2. (b) The board is often asked to furnish its opinions or recommendations on a certain matter for strictly departmental purposes—often of a highly confidential nature. Questions in regard to import control or matters concerning the Estimates may be mentioned as examples. In such cases it is regarded as undesirable and sometimes as unnecessary to table these views or recommendations, which must be done if the provisions of the Act are to be strictly adhered to.

Although it does not often happen that reports of the Board of Trade and Industries are tabled in Parliament after the expiration of the prescribed period, nor that opinions or memorandums called for from the board are of a confidential nature, it is deemed desirable to adjust the Act to the requirements of the practical circumstances. With the Bill before the House at present these two problems will be eliminated. Hon. members will notice that the time limit of one month is being deleted and that it is being provided instead that the Minister shall table reports and recommendations in Parliament as soon as possible, but with due regard to the circumstances of each case.

In this regard it may be mentioned that the proposed amendment will not lead to the tabling of reports of the board being delayed unnecessarily. The position is that the vast majority of the reports and recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries arise from applications for tariff protection, and so forth, that are received from private undertakings. These applications are made known in the Government Gazette so that all concerned may submit objections or suggestions to the board should they want to do so. From the nature of the case, therefore, there are always groups of, or individual, undertakings which have a material interest in the recommendations of the board, and which, as practice has shown in the past, are constantly exercising pressure for the contents of reports of the board to be tabled and made known with as little delay as possible.

In terms of the present legal provisions the Minister is not allowed to table only parts of reports by the board. Some reports of the board contain statements or recommendations which cannot be made known under certain circumstances or at a given moment, but only at a later stage when certain procedures or actions have been carried out. The result is that such reports must then be held back in their entirety, while the disclosure of those parts which are not of a confidential nature may in fact be of great importance and advantage to trade and industry. The second implication of the proposed amendment, therefore, is to eliminate this anomaly.

In the circumstances I trust that the House will support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister has made a statement explaining why he wants this Bill. On the face of it, it is a little Bill. One looked at it and asked oneself why it has been introduced and I must say that, having listened to the hon. the Minister, I still ask myself why it is necessary to introduce the Bill in this form.

The Act that we are to amend is quite clear in its objects. The functions of the board are set out in section 9. The functions are almost entirely in regard to dealing with the question of protecting industries by way of tariffs against dumping or other competition. The usual general provision, namely “any other matter which may be referred to it by the Minister” was again included at the end. However, it is quite clear, I think, that the intentions of the board, when it was established, were purely economic. It was to be an economic advisory board with its main function being to protect the industrial development of the country by means of recommending tariff adjustments or otherwise. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, the Act provides that reports and recommendations of the board must be laid before the Senate and the House of Assembly for the information of Parliament, for the information of those concerned as well as for the information of the country as a whole. The hon. the Minister has explained that it is not always possible to carry out the strict provisions in regard to the laying on the Table of these reports. I will deal with that in a moment.

This little one clause Bill introduces a brand-new principle into the Act. It gives the Minister the right to withhold information which thus far has been available to Parliament. Section 13 of the Act will now read as follows:

The governing reason for this is contained in the words “without detriment to the public interest”. That is all right. We have no objection to giving the Government authority to do so when it is in the public interest. I think we have just shown that while we were discussing the previous Bill. However, this proposal is quite clearly an inroad on the rights of Parliament. Parliament has had the right since 1944 to be kept informed of Board of Trade reports. That right has been valued and, I think, has been very important. An inroad on the rights of Parliament, I think, should be resisted by Parliament on all occasions except on occasions of national emergency and for a limited period. There are members who sit on that side of the House and support the Government. On the other hand there are members who sit on this side of the House, who are in opposition. However, we are all members of Parliament. It seems to me that this is a matter which affects all members of Parliament, irrespective of what party they happen to belong to or on which side of the House they happen to be sitting. It affects all members of Parliament, because they are part and parcel of Parliament. I think every one of us should feel that Parliament, of which we are all members, should not lightly surrender to the Executive demands which are made upon it. Parliament as a whole should be jealous of the rights and the duties which devolve upon it. It seems to me that otherwise Parliament will cease to be able to play its part in democratic government under the system which we have here.

Therefore I think that this Bill is far more important than the hon. the Deputy Minister wants us to believe. The Board of Trade has been in existence for some 45 years and it has been a tried and trusted means of implementing the policies of protecting and promoting industrial development. It has been tried over the years and I can say tried, because I cannot think of any case where the considered report and recommendations by the board to Parliament have not been treated with great respect and relied upon to a very great degree. I say trusted, because I think that one of the reasons why it has been trusted, not only by Parliament but by all those concerned and by the country as a whole, is the publicity which has been given to its work and to its findings. Over a long period this board and its succession of able chairmen and hardworking members have always put forward reports which the country has learned to rely on as being objective and valuable recommendations in regard to our industrial development. The moment any veil of secrecy is drawn over its activities confidence in the board immediately becomes shaken. I think it is dangerous if uncertainty exists and if it is known that the board is investigating a subject but makes no report available. This will create a state of uncertainty and doubt. It is still more dangerous if that information is not made available and it happens to leak out to certain people. I do not think I have to enlarge on this danger. The hon. the Deputy Minister can see it for himself.

The hon. the Deputy Minister gave us reasons why he wants these amendments. He said that for certain reasons reports cannot always be laid upon the Table and that sometimes the board has to make confidential reports to the Government. He admits that these things seldom happen. But broadly speaking he suggests that security and confidential matters should not be made available in future; therefore he wants this power. This board has been functioning for 45 years in this particular capacity. It has not been dealing with matters affecting the security or welfare of the country, except in the economic sphere. If the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Government want confidential inquiries made, they have lots of other bodies at their disposal. They can appoint a departmental committee, and in fact this is frequently done. They have the External Procurements Fund, which has at its disposal very great sums of money in connection with industrial production—something like R100 million—and they have the Armaments Board as well as the Armaments Corporation, both of which have very wide powers; and they have the Industrial Development Corporation. In other words, in the interest of security Parliament has already given the Executive very wide powers indeed to do confidentially whatever requires to be done for the safety and the welfare of the State.

Some people might think that these powers are too wide, but these powers have been given by Parliament, and I suggest that the powers that they have are quite sufficient to enable them to carry out any inquiries that they wish to carry out without affecting the normal routine work of the Board of Trade, which stands for something in the economic life of this country, and without dragging the Board of Trade into this cloak-and-dagger stuff of which we hear so much these days. We do not think that it is necessary to give the hon. the Minister the powers for which he asks in this small amendment. If he were asking for an alteration of the period within which reports must be laid on the Table, that would be a different thing, but here is he asking for a blanket right to withhold the information, to delay it as much as he likes and, if necessary, if he thinks it fit in the public interest not to make it available at all. We do not think that the Board of Trade, which has had a specific purpose over the years, which is well-known and well-established and which plays an important part in the economic life of this country, is the instrument which the hon. the Deputy Minister should try to use in matters of a confidential nature which he thinks should not be made public by laying it on the Table of the House.

You see, Sir, under the guise of public interest and security, the Executive, that section of Parliament which forms the Executive, has in recent years gradually been eroding the authority of Parliament. On the plea of national security, Parliament has been prepared to give very wide powers to the Government and to surrender a good deal of the control, in many matters, which it used to have. But this eroding is going on and the Government is demanding more and more dictatorial and unfettered powers in quite small matters. This is not a matter of national importance, but it is going to interfere with and upset the whole routine of the Board of Trade if it is used in this way, and we feel that it is time, in the interests of Parliament itself, to call a halt to these demands which are being made upon us without giving us sound and substantial reasons. In the circumstances we are not prepared to support this Bill.

Sir, we have indeed made a great deal of progress in this country if the main speaker on the Opposition side can tell us that measures that are taken to protect our own industries are also supported by the Opposition these days. But surely the hon. member for Constantia is reading infinitely more into this Bill than it contains. Surely it is preposterous to make use of this opportunity to state for the umpteenth time that we on this side of the House are continually curtailing the powers of Parliament. The hon. member stated here that this Bill was once again making an inroad on the rights of Parliament. Sir, this Bill does not provide that the Minister need not table these reports; all it says is that the Minister will no longer be obliged to table those reports within one month.

It is much more than that.

The Bill states explicitly that he must table these reports as soon as possible, but with due regard to the circumstances of each case concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister stated explicitly here that this concession was only being asked because it was sometimes impossible in practice to table these reports within a month. The machinery of State does not always work as quickly as we should like, and for that reason it is sometimes impossible to table these reports within a month, and what is being asked in this Bill is that the hon. the Minister should have a little more time to table the reports, but most certainly not the right to refuse to table them, and therefore we very gladly support the Bill.

Sir, the hon. member for Paarl, who has just spoken, has suggested that the hon. member for Constantia has read far more into the Bill than it actually says. I cannot agree with that, because the clause is quite clear. It gives the Minister a discretion. If the Minister feels that in the public interest the report should not be laid on the Table, then it will not be laid on the Table of the House. Sir, it is important that as far as possible board of Trade reports should be available to all concerned. As far as possible the reports of the Board of Trade should be available to the outside public and to members of this House for examination because individual interests are involved. If the Minister will refer to section 9 of the principal Act of 1944 he will find that there is a variety of matters which the board can investigate, matters relating to various sections of commerce and industry.

Section 9 (1) provides for the board to inquiry into the payment of bounties and other forms of State-aid for industries; fiscal policy in so far as it bears on commerce and industry; the recasting and revision of the customs tariff; the removal of anomalies in the customs and excise tariffs; the supply of raw materials, etc. These are matters in which interested parties in commerce and industry frequently come to the Board of Trade and ask for certain relief and help for their specific industry. I think it is in the interest of all concerned and in the interest of the Minister particularly that when relief is given, it is given in the light of day. I am not suggesting in any way that the Minister wants to cover things up but I think that if there is any delay he should rather ask for an extension of the period instead of asking the House to give him the right to withhold these reports from Parliament, because once these reports are made available to the Minister and he does not publish them, there is the danger that the Minister will be suspect or that his Department will be suspect.

Sir, these are important documents because the Board of Trade may recommend that assistance be given to that section of industry which requires help or that a lesser measure of help be given to it, and the country as a whole will know that help is being asked for. A particular industry which is just starting may find that it is producing an article of quality which can gain a considerably bigger market in South Africa if it can get the necessary protection. They may then apply to the Board of Trade for protection; the Board of Trade will appoint its officers to undertake the investigation, and in the course of the investigations they may find that there are certain circumstances which do not justify the granting of the protection sought by the firm concerned.

Subsequently the report is laid on the Table of this House; it is made available to the public; it is read by the public and by members of the House and members may satisfy themselves, on the facts as stated in the report, that the withholding of that relief is justified. If that report is withheld and subsequently a similar business approaches the Department and makes out a better case and gets the required protection, and that report too is not made available, then immediately there will be a suspicion in the minds of members of the public that there is something doubtful taking place and questions will be asked. Sir, we know that over a period of over 45 years the reports of the Board of Trade have been objective; they have been published and the public has had confidence in the Board of Trade reports and has recognized the standard which has been set over many years by the Board of Trade. We have had outstanding men as chairmen of the Board of Trade and as members of the Board of Trade, dedicated officials who have conducted these investigations, both part-time and full-time members of the Public Service. I think it is very unwise, having regard to the wide scope of relief which can be given by a Government Department and by the Minister in his capacity as Minister of Economic Affairs, to refuse to lay the reports on the Table of the House on the grounds that he does not consider it to be in the interest of the public to do so. Suspicion will grow and doubt will be cast either on the Minister or on his Department or on the Board of Trade and I think that should be avoided. Let me say that I am not raising any queries as far as either the Minister, the Deputy Minister or the Board of Trade is concerned. Sir, Parliament has exercised this right for more than 45 years, and the standard that has been achieved over this period should not lightly be lowered. I submit that the hon. the Minister has not given an adequate reason in his speech this afternoon for denying Parliament the right to examine Board of Trade reports. You see, Sir, if Board of Trade reports are not published and they are subsequently acted upon by the Minister, he will be at a disadvantage if he gives certain relief and we ask him why he has given that relief. The Minister in his reply will say that the matter was investigated by the Board of Trade, that the Board of Trade submitted a report and that he, the Minister, is satisfied that the benefits or bounties granted, in the shape of a protective duty or otherwise, were justified, and that he is supported in that view by the Board of Trade report in his possession. But he will be at a disadvantage because while we have the assurance from the Minister that he holds the report of the Board of Trade, we have not seen that report. That report will not be available to us. There is also the third disadvantage that once the public realize that a Board of Trade report need not be published, there will be the tendency on the part of vested interests to ask the Minister please not to publish the report. Big industries asking for certain help, and particularly international interests requiring either permanent or temporary help for their particular industries, knowing that the Minister has this power, may make special representations to the Minister and say to him that in view of the importance of their industry, and in view of the fact that this is an international organization and that they would not like this information to get out, he should not make the information available. Once the organizations realize that they can have a certain amount of secrecy, there may be a tendency on their part to endeavour to get more relief than would otherwise be justified because they know they can hide behind a veil of secrecy. That, too, is not in the interest of the country. Over a long period experience has shown that the objective reporting of the Board of Trade, and the fact that it can be published in the light of day and that it can be tabled in this House, is in the public interest. The Minister has indicated that there are questions of delays. I am quite certain that if there are occasions when the Minister finds it advisable to delay the publication of the report because he does not want to indicate whether he will grant or withhold a duty, he can withhold it for a reasonable period and then he can come to the House when he is ready to introduce his legislation, and then he can tell the House that he has held back the report until he is in a position to introduce legislation, and then there will be no criticism in the House as long as the House can eventually get the report. But I submit that the way the Minister is going about it now is wrong. It gives the Minister the power to withhold the report and the public cannot see the report. Parliament is jealous of its powers. The Board has had a record of over 45 years and I do not think there has ever been an occasion when a Board of Trade report has been debated in this House, no matter what Government was in power, or when there was any suggestion of partisanship on the part of the Board of Trade. It has an honourable record; its reports are objective, and I suggest that the Minister should think again on this matter. If he wants an extension of time, let him amend the legislation in such a way as to grant an extension of time, but do not take these powers to withhold a report on the ground of public interest. As the hon. member for Constantia has already said, there are other means of getting information of a confidential nature and there is no need, I submit, to come with this Bill in this form because I think it will spoil the good record of the Board of Trade and also create the possibility of suspicion if reports are withheld and not made available on the Table of this House.

It is true, and we do not wish to deny it, that the Minister’s powers are now being increased and that, in effect, the rights of Parliament are being decreased. But I want to give the assurance that this side of the House is as concerned about upholding the rights of Parliament, as long as doing so is in the public interest, as are hon. members opposite. But one is faced with situations where it is in the public interest—and we can mention several examples of this—to grant certain powers to the Minister concerned. Now, what is more important, public interest or the powers of Parliament? I want to say that if there is a clash between the two, then public interest should come first; and what is more, a great fuss is now being made here about the powers of Parliament in this regard. This is the case, but what is being experienced in practice? For how many years have these reports now been submitted to Parliament, and how many times have hon. members on that side of the House risen and debated those reports? Since I have been a member of this House, and that has not been very long—just over three years— that has not happened once. These hon. members are referring to the status and to the objectivity of the Board of Trade and Industries. That is correct, but I cannot see how the objectivity of the Board can be prejudiced or influenced in any respect as a result of the amendment in this Bill. Since appreciative references are now being made to the objectivity of this Board, we have every reason to assume that in the future this Board will continue to display the same degree of objectivity as it did in the past. The hon. member for Constantia said that he could not see why the Minister was now asking for this amendment. He replied to that in part. He said that there were other bodies which could make certain investigations and that in such cases those reports did not have to be tabled in Parliament at once, investigations which, considering the circumstances, were of a confidential nature. But here we have a body which, as he has rightly said, has for 45 years rendered valuable service and gained knowledge and experience, and now practical experience shows that there are certain matters in regard to which this body is in the best position to serve the Government and the Minister concerned with advice, and that it is not desirable, owing to circumstances as explained by the Minister, for such reports and recommendations to be tabled within a month, such as matters relating to the Estimates. There are many things which one does not wish to reveal before the Budget speech has been made. That is one of the reasons the Minister advanced. If the Board of Trade and Industries is the best body for making that investigation, why should one approach another body? The Board of Trade and Industries specializes in certain specific fields, and it is essential in the public interest for the Government to obtain the right advice from a body which has the knowledge and the experience; it is in the public interest for the Government to approach that body for advice so that it may take the right decisions. No, Sir, I do not think that argument is a valid one. And now I want to mention a second reason.

The hon. member has not yet replied to the second argument advanced by this Minister, i.e. to call attention to the delay and the time-lag as a result of agreements with G.A.T.T. These are international agreements and a great deal of time is taken up, and for that reason they make it technically impossible for the Minister to comply with the relevant provisions of the Act. Now the hon. member for Pinetown says that he has a possible solution; we can extend the periods, but by how much? Experience has shown that one cannot determine that period, because it may take two months or it may perhaps take three months or even more. That is why, as a very result of these international agreements and the fact that this National Government has always met its international obligations properly, it still meets those obligations, but if it has to meet those obligations, it cannot comply with the relevant provision, and for all practical purposes it is impossible to lay down a specific period. And what is more, the Minister has made it clear that, although he now has the power to keep them back, that is not the intention, that the submission of the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries will still take place as it did in the past, but he is merely requesting the power to keep them back when circumstances are such that he finds it impossible to comply with that provision. This has the effect that he is requesting the power to submit the report, at his own discretion, at a juncture when it is possible for him to do so. To me this appears to be a reasonable request. I admit that it is possible to abuse it. I know that that is the case, but hon. members opposite must admit that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Affairs have always met their responsibilities to this Parliament very faithfully; and is there at present any reason why they would not do so in this case? We are sympathetic towards some of the objections raised by that side of the House—we do not wish to deny that there are certain objections and disadvantages—but if we consider both the advantages and the disadvantages, this side of the House feels that it is essential in the public interest and for the effective functioning of the Board of Trade and Industries that this amendment be effected to the Act.

I just want to thank hon. members who participated in this discussion. I want to tell the Opposition that, although the attitude they adopted in regard to this matter was different from the one I stated here in my introductory speech, I think they did so in a fair manner. This is in any case not a political matter. We are dealing here with the interests of our country as they are revealed in some aspect or other of the functioning of our departments. I want to associate myself with what was said by several speakers, and by the Opposition as well, by saying that the Board of Trade and Industries has over a period of years acquired for itself a special niche in the economic life of our country and that it has contributed a great deal towards causing the economy of South Africa to grow, as has in fact been the case. I also want to say that over the years the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries have been of a very high quality, and they still are to-day. I have the privilege of reading some of these reports almost every week, and I can testify to their being of an exceptionally high standard. I also want to say that as far as the Government and I myself are concerned, we want to give the Opposition and the country the assurance that there is really no desire on our part to strip Parliament of its powers. I should be very sorry if that impression were created, because that is not what we envisage.

I feel that I should just state once again the problems which we have had and which have given rise to this Bill. The Board of Trade and Industries issues reports of various kinds. One of the kinds of reports it publishes, is reports dealing with tariff protection. These represent one of the groups of reports it issues. Those reports are specifically drawn up by the Board in pursuance of requests. The Board does not simply go along and issue a report on tariff protection, for instance, on imported rubber or toys. A special and specific request has to be made to the Board by an industrialist or a prospective industrialist for protection or for rebate on duty or for the introduction of an anti-dumping duty. That request which is made by the industrialist to the Board, is first published in the Gazette for general information, for the information of the whole country, because there are many other people who are concerned in the matter and who give evidence before the Board of Trade and Industries and make submissions as to how they would be prejudiced or affected if such protection were introduced. All interested parties throughout the country may put their case to the Board. Therefore, notice is given of it in the Gazette and everybody knows about it. Subsequent to that the Board issues its report and recommendation. Now one finds the ordinary and uncomplicated case where no international agreements are at stake. But I can give hon. members the assurance that we find it extremely difficult, in the case of these uncomplicated ones, to table the report in this House within a month, as is being provided in the Act.

We accept that.

Yes, I am coming to the other points raised by hon. members. We find this almost impossible, and I think I can put it to hon. members that it takes approximately six weeks to table the most uncomplicated of these reports which are issued by the Board.

But then there are recommendations and the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries where international agreements, the G.A.T.T. agreement, are at stake. In such cases they have to be sent first to our representatives in Geneva, and over there negotiations have to be conducted and they have to arrive at some solution or other. In such a case it becomes absolutely impossible, as hon. members opposite also said. It may take months. Although at first we thought of changing the provision of this clause to three months, we are of the opinion that even three months would be too short in some cases. In other words, because of this group of reports dealing with tariff protection, we actually contravened the Act from time to time in the past. I want to tell hon. members that I listened to the arguments they advanced in regard to this group of investigations and reports. The hon. members for Constantia and Pinetown in particular spoke about these aspects. I realize now that they will vote against the Bill as it reads at the moment, but, at any rate, it is my intention to investigate the position before the Committee Stage in order to see whether it will be possible for us to change clause 1 so that we may provide in it that all the reports of the Board in which tariff protection is requested, in which rebate on duty or an anti-dumping duty is recommended, are to be laid on the Table. I am quite willing to give consideration to committing the Department and the Minister to laying those reports on the Table without a time limit. I shall look into that matter, and I hope it will be possible to do so.

Then we come to the second group of investigations made by the Board of Trade and Industries. These are what we may in fact call “inter-departmental” reports or recommendations. Actually they are not reports of the Board of Trade and Industries, as hon. members consider them to be. An example I can mention to them is that, when changes have to be effected in regard to import control, the Minister may request the Board to submit a report to him in order that he may decide how he wants to determine his import control policy. This is really an inter-departmental recommendation, not a report, although section 13 provides that all reports and recommendations are to be tabled in this House. But in the case of import control it may happen that the Minister may ask the Board, “Tell me what the implication would be of this or that step which I am contemplating.” Then the Minister is given that recommendation.

I want to mention a second example. A few years ago there was a certain aspect in regard to an import duty on wood-pulp. But in that case all that was requested, was an inter-departmental report of the Board of Trade and Industries to explain the whole position, After the Department of the Minister had received it, it appeared, as hon. members know, that our whole relationship with the three Protectorates were affected. The question of wood-pulp was discussed with them for two years. Certain negotiations are still being conducted with them to this day. That report was in effect never intended for general information or for being tabled in this House. I also feel that that sort of report ought not to be tabled in this House in future. I am also mentioning this as an indication of our problems, as a result of which we are presenting this amending Bill to the House to-day.

There is another example which, I think, was also mentioned here, i.e. that, when the Minister of Finance wants to increase or reduce certain excise duties, he may ask the Board of Trade and Industries to submit to him with a report in regard to that matter. It may happen that the Minister receives this report in September or October, when he is engaged preparing his Estimates. In that case the Minister would only announce it in his Budget speech in March of the following year. Or he may decide in the end not to implement it in his Estimates at all. As far as that sort of report of the Board to the Minister is concerned, we feel that the Minister should have the right to say that that is not a report which he wants to table in this House. If hon. members paid attention to the problems I have stated, it ought to be clear to them that it is these reports, reports which I almost want to call interdepartmental reports or reports for the information of the Minister of Finance in regard to his fiscal policy, which we had in mind when we said that the Minister had to judge whether keeping them back would be in the public interest and not be prejudicial to anybody.

But are they not in any case being implemented immediately by proclamation …?

As soon as the Board makes a recommendation on a specific industry and the Ministers of Economic Affairs and Finance have approved it, it is sent through to the Department of Customs and Excise so that the necessary proclamation may be drafted. That proclamation is signed by the Minister of Finance and then it is published in the Gazette. Then the recommendation in the report—this concerns the first group in regard to tariff protection—is made known to everybody. If the report is not tabled in this House, anybody may make inquiries to ascertain why a tariff announcement was made in the Gazette without the report being tabled. It is in actual fact quite obvious that all the reports on tariff protection will be tabled in this House. If it would give greater satisfaction, I am prepared to do my best to change clause 1 so as to provide that all the reports of the Board of Trade and Industries in which tariff protection or rebate on duty is granted or in which anti-dumping duties are introduced, must be laid upon the Table, with the further safeguard and proviso as have been laid down in respect of other reports and recommendations to the Minister.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—97: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Toil, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning. J. M_; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar. B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van den Heever, D. J. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B. Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo. A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentsel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—32: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

If there is one matter on which all of us in this House are agreed it is certainly that we all feel that rapid enough progress is not being made with soil conservation. The entire population to-day realizes how essential it is to protect and strengthen our agricultural resources. I can say without fear of contradiction that our farming community and the general public are more conservation conscious to-day than ever before. Perhaps the severe droughts, and the restrictions on water consumption which these entailed, have contributed greatly to making our entire population aware of how dependent we are on our agricultural resources and that the country’s development is, to a large extent, dependent upon the protection, and judicious utilization of these resources.

Organized agriculture, the Soil Conservation Board, our predecessors and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services have in recent years given serious attention to the factors impeding progress in soil conservation. It is not necessary for me here to deal once again with all the bottlenecks in connection with our soil conservation endeavours. The matter has been discussed in detail in this House on various occasions in the past.

When the Soil Conservation Act (Act No. 45 of 1946) was placed on the Statute Book in 1946, everyone cherished the hope that within a few decades the dangers of soil erosion would be something of the past and that the Act would enable all farmers to apply conservation farming methods on the planned farms within a few years. A new dispensation for our agricultural industry was envisaged. Now, after 23 years, however, it appears that all the ideals have not been realized and that not as much progress has been made in soil conservation as the House expected in 1946. Over the years it has become apparent that the present Soil Conservation Act was drawn up too idealistically, that it did not make sufficient allowances for the realities of the situation and that it therefore contained certain deficiencies which have hampered progress in soil conservation.

However, it must be remembered that in 1946 the farming community and the public were not yet ready for an Act in which the State would have powers to take action against farmers who ruined and misused their land. In order to succeed with a Soil Conservation Act, the draughtsmen were forced to draw it up as democratically as possible in 1946. Farmers would elect the majority of the members of the soil conservation district committees. These committees would draw up district plans and decide what soil conservation measures the plans would contain. The committees would also have to ensure that the provisions of the district plan were implemented, in other words, they themselves had to institute legal proceedings against offenders. The farmers themselves would decide whether they wanted their area declared a soil conservation district. Every farmer could decide whether he wanted his farm planned or not. The State would supply mainly technical and financial assistance. I know of no more democratic Act in our country. And yet this Act of 1946 went much further than those of the various states of the United States of America in which no provision is made for penalties for offenders.

It consequently took many years before the soil conservation districts declared comprised the larger part of the surface area of the Republic. To-day about 50 per cent of the farms have been planned and the most essential soil conservation works have been completed on a quarter of the planned farms. Initially the majority of the district committees did not understand their difficult task. It is only in recent years, after the Department had made serious efforts to train committee members, that committees began to function successfully. There were, of course, also committees who took the bull by the horns from the start and did pioneer work. Because many committee members were not able to plan farms they relied heavily upon the extension officers and technicians of the Department. Owing to a chronic shortage of officers the desired progress could not be made with farm planning either. The farmers whose farms had been planned and on whose farms the necessary works, such as fences had been erected, did not, however, apply the prescribed measures. According to the annual reports of the Soil Conservation Board, only a very small percentage of the farmers whose farms have been planned, implement all the prescribed measures.

The most serious bottleneck in the implementation of the Act is, however, the fact that the committees were mostly not prepared to take action against their fellow farmers who refused to comply with the provisions of the Act. As a result very few prosecutions, a mere 21, have so far been instituted against wilful offenders. The committees and organized agriculture have in fact made repeated representations to the Minister and his Department that the committees be relieved of this obligation. It is not necessary for me to elaborate on other administrative bottlenecks in the Act, such as the way in which committee members are elected. Often the attendance of farmers is so poor that an election cannot take place, etc.

After lengthy consultation with the South African Agricultural Union it was decided to amend the Act so that the bottlenecks could be eliminated and to make it more streamlined so that everything could be applied towards expediting the soil conservation process.

Before dealing with the amendments introduced into the new Act, however, I want to clear away the impression which some people may have that no, or very little, progress has been made in soil conservation since 1946. The Act of 1946 undeniably contributed a great deal towards making our farming community more soil conservation conscious. The influence exerted by the approximately 5,100 district committee members on their fellow farmers must not be underestimated; especially the members who underwent training courses in soil conservation and farm planning have rendered very valuable services to their communities. Many committees have also achieved success through arranging soil conservation competitions and farmers’ days. By making a study of the problems in their area many committees have been able to determine priorities in the drawing up of their soil conservation programmes and have therefore been able to set to work purposefully. Accordingly I should like to make use of this opportunity to express the gratitude of the Minister and myself to all the soil conservation committees for their selfless service in the interests of their fellow farmers and for the preservation of our soil. The Soil Conservation Board has also made a great contribution in constantly pointing out to our farming community and to the broader public the serious dangers inherent in the misuse of our agricultural resources, as is also apparent from the latest annual report of the Board. I also want to express my deep appreciation to the members of the Board for their valuable services.

The value of soil conservation works thus far erected by farmers is about R44 million. More than half of these works were completed in the past eight years, which indicates how the rate of erection of soil conservation works has accelerated in the past few years. The value of approved works is twice as much. The subsidies granted by the State have been increased from time to time so that to-day they already amount to 55 per cent, while soil conservation works in catchment areas can be subsidized up to as much as 90 per cent. The maximum subsidy per farming unit has also been increased time and again; to-day there is even no restriction at all any more. Over the past seven years the State has paid out about R10.5 million in subsidies on soil conservation works and measures. The value of State works which have been erected by the Department itself, amounts to more than R4 million. I want to make it very clear once more that the suggestion can never be made that soil conservation has been delayed as a result of insufficient provision of funds for subsidies or loans.

The climate for soil conservation is particularly favourable to-day. Farming leaders have been urging for some years now that the Act should be applied much more strictly and have even suggested coercive measures such as the withholding of drought aid in the case of farmers who do not apply conservation measures and practices. It is therefore hoped that the necessary momentum will be afforded to the soil conservation effort by this amendment to the Act, thereby ushering in a new era in the protection and judicious utilization of our agricultural resources. It is gratifying to note that to-day more emphasis is being placed on the positive aspect of the soil conservation idea, i.e. the strengthening and efficient management and utilization of the agricultural resources through the application of scientific farming methods.

Important amendments

Before explaining the amendments which the new Act contains, I just want to mention that the most important principles contained therein are supported by the South African Agricultural Union. The most important amendments in principle which have been introduced into the new Act are the following:

1. (1) That the executive authority now rests fully with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and that it will no longer be an official duty of the district committees to see to it that the provisions of the Act are carried out, i.e. to institute legal proceedings against offenders.
2. (2) That henceforth it will no longer be the responsibility of district committees to draw up soil conservation schemes. In future the district or farm plan will no longer be bound by law. The existing plans, agreements and obligations are, however, being protected by this Bill until they are replaced by the new dispensation.

Instead of declaring soil conservation measures as contained in section 19 applicable in a district plan at the discretion of district committees, they will in future, as indicated in clause 3, be declared by way of directions in the Government Gazette for each district, after consultation with the district committee. The authorization in terms of clause 3 is actually a reformulation of that of the present section 19, without any radical deviations in principle. The main function of the district committees in future will be an advisory one. They shall have to supply the Department with advice in connection with the directions to be drawn up for each district and where exemptions must be granted in exceptional cases. In addition the committees will have to work in the closest co-operation with extension officers in connection with the situational determination of local resources, particularly as regards effective ways and means of protecting and developing them. They will also have to render assistance and give advice to their fellow farmers and activate them to apply soil conservation farming methods.

Since the committees will no longer have executive powers, the grounds for the majority of the members having to be elected by the land owners fall away. In future the district committees will therefore be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, after consultation with organized agriculture. However, I wish to emphasize that without the assistance and support of these committees the soil conservation effort will not succeed properly. The committees will therefore continue to play an important and key role in our soil conservation campaign and programmes in future.

(3) In the new amendment to the law no provision is made for a statutory Soil Conservation Board. Since the present Board acted mainly as an advisory board without any executive powers, it is our intention to appoint a national advisory soil conservation board to advise us and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services on the broader policy aspects in connection with soil conservation, just as in the case of the Agricultural Advisory Board and other advisory boards, such as the Planning, Scientific and Economic Advisory Boards. Since such boards do not have executive powers, it is not necessary to make them statutory. The majority of members of the Soil Conservation Board will also be appointed after consultation with the South African Agricultural Union.

The main object with the amendment to the law is to expedite the soil conservation effort and to combat serious malpractices and the misuse of the soil.

The time-consuming procedure in connection with the drawing up and serving of a district soil conservation and farm scheme is now being eliminated by the declaration of directions for each district in the Government Gazette. Directions can even be served by the Department upon individual farmers in order to prohibit harmful malpractices. After directions have been declared to be applicable, it will be expected of every user of land to apply the required conservation farming practices. He is at liberty to obtain anyone’s advice, although committee members and officers of the Department will always be prepared to give every farmer technical advice and assistance. Financial assistance will be granted just as in the past. However, this will still be done on the basis of a farm map and schedule.

The Department will also make every effort to simplify the procedures in connection with the specifications of farmers’ works and their approval as much as possible, as is already the case with internal camp fences.

In order to facilitate the implementation of the Act it is the intention again to establish a separate Division of Soil Conservation within the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. Through its inspectorate this division will have to ensure that the declared directions are carried out and complied with. I should like to give hon. members the assurance that the powers which are now being granted to the Minister and to my Department will be exercised with the greatest discretion. Disciplinary action against wilful offenders will only be taken after consultation with the district committees concerned and after repeated warnings. The policy which will be followed will be: Guide, assist and admonish until no alternative but prosecution remains. By coercive measures alone we shall not be able to help to save the soil; the right attitude must be there in the first place. The extension officers and other technical officers of the Department, together with the committees, will in future be able to devote all their time to the education and training of farmers and the cultivation of the right soil conservation attitude among them. It is the intention to consult on as many levels as possible and to co-operate with the farming community. From the district committees it is proposed to constitute sub-and regional advisory committees with which the regional heads concerned and the new Division of Soil Conservation will be able to have the closest co-operation. On the highest level the National Advisory Soil Conservation Board will play an indispensable part in connection with general policy matters.

In conclusion I want to express the hope that I shall obtain the kind co-operation of the hon. House in order to have this measure approved. I am sure none of us is under the illusion that this is the last word on soil conservation. If further snags and bottlenecks should arise in the future, we will simply have to be prepared once again to iron them out. However, I am convinced that this measure will greatly facilitate the realization of our soil conservation aims.

Mr. Speaker, we have all listened with particular attention to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned that the Act of 1946 was too idealistic and added that he knew of no more democratic Act than the one which was passed at that time. We on this side of the House do not want to impede the passing of this Bill in any way. We want to see whether we cannot make a success of it. Thus far, after 23 years, we have still not succeeded in checking soil erosion in this country, in spite of that idealistic legislation of 1946. However, I want to say at once that it has not been as a result of a lack of interest on the part of our farming community. I think there are very few farmers who do not realize the economic value of conservation farming. I think that everyone realizes that the cultivation of the land, the saving of the veld, its proper utilization, the proper fencing of camps, and proper pasture and cultivation rotation are absolutely essential if we want our farming enterprises to continue. These are not the reasons why, after 23 years, we can say that the legislation has not succeeded. The main reason why soil conservation and the prevention of soil erosion could not succeed is that we simply have not had enough officials to ensure that the works are carried out. In the second place, we could not succeed because the farmer was frequently not financially up to it, despite the assistance from the Government. The third reason why we could not succeed is that we have from time to time come up against disasters such as thoughts, plagues and the like. We have even had to contend with plagues such as termites, as the hon. member for Middelland mentioned, Karoo caterpillars and locusts.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.