Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill Parliament is requested to approve of the provision of a further sum of R9,175.52 for the purpose of covering certain expenditure which has been declared unauthorized. Full details about the circumstances in which the expenditure had been incurred were furnished in the annual report of the Controller and Auditor-General which deals with the financial year 1968-’69 and which was tabled in this House, as well as in the First and Second Reports of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, 1970, which were recently adopted by this House. I therefore do not deem it necessary to furnish further information on the matter. Covering Parliamentary approval for the expenditure incurred during 1969-’70 will be obtained at a later stage by the inclusion of the amount in the Unauthorized Expenditure Bill relating to that financial year.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill puts into effect a decision of the Select Committee on Public Accounts and therefore has our support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the whole House.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As indicated in the long title of this Bill, it contains mainly three principles, i.e. the application of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, 1934, to the Territory of South-West Africa, the amendment of the qualifications for admission of attorneys, and to make further provision for the taking of clerks under articles of clerkship.

Sir, it is particularly the amendment in clause 3 which is of very great importance to the attorneys’ profession. This clause, as hon. members will notice, lays down, as one of the basic requirements for admission as an attorney, the obtaining of a university degree, known as the Baccalaureus Procurationis degree. This degree will in practice probably be known as the B.Proc. degree. The introduction of this degree will crown the long years of effort on the part of the Association of Law Societies of the Republic of South Africa to lay down a standard qualification to replace the variety of legal qualifications which are accepted to-day for the purpose of admitting a person to the attorneys’ profession. In addition, the student will be rewarded for his long years of study with a university degree instead of a diploma. As we all know, many of our attorneys already hold the higher professional degree, i.e. the LL.B. degree, which is also the required degree for admission as an advocate, and under the Act this still remains a qualification for admission to the attorneys’ profession. The possibility is not excluded that the introduction of the B.Proc. degree will be a step in the direction of more attorneys obtaining their LL.B. degrees, something which will be greatly welcomed by the profession.

Because prospective candidates for attorneyship will now probably have to cover a wider field of study, the Association of Law Societies, has, in consultation with universities, decided on a four-year course of study for the degree. Provision for this, as well as for the powers of the Board for the Recognition of Examinations in Law in this connection, is made in the clause concerned. I may just mention that several universities have already indicated that they support the introduction of a degree to replace the minimum academic qualifications at present required for admission as an attorney. The necessary transitional provisions in respect of persons who have written or entered for examinations in terms of the existing provisions are contained in clause 15 of the Bill. This clause now also contains, as transitional provisions, the existing provisions of section 20 (1) (a) and certain provisions of 21 (3) of the Act.

In paragraph (c) of clause 6 of the Bill provision is made for an attorney to have more clerks under articles. The object of this is to train more persons for the profession of attorney. This amendment is also being effected at the request of the Association of Law Societies. At the same time, provision is made in paragraph (a) of this clause for more articled clerks to be employed in the office of the State Attorney and his branch offices. This amendment is also being effected after consultation with the Association of Law Societies, of which the State Attorney and his staff are members.

Because the amendments in clauses 3 and 6 also necessitate an adjustment to the legislation relating to South-West Africa and in view of the provisions of the South-West Africa Affairs Act. 1969, in terms of which matters relating to legal practitioners are scheduled matters, as referred to in that Act, the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, 1934, is also being applied in the Territory. The various other clauses of the Bill relate to this and also contain consequential amendments. If necessary, they can be discussed further in the Committee Stage.

In the last clause provision is made for different dates to be fixed in respect of different provisions for the coming into operation of the Bill. This is necessary because the coming into operation of the provisions of clause 3, i.e. in respect of the proposed B.Proc. degree, and that of the rest of the Bill will not necessarily coincide, because negotiations in connection with the syllabus for the degree and so forth still have to be conducted. I think the Law Society deserves the congratulations of this House on this new development for the purposes of promoting their profession.

Sir, this Bill has the wholehearted support of this side of the House, particularly as it comes, in so far as the main part is concerned, from the Association of Law Societies itself. They wish to have a higher standard of education in the law for their members, and they wish now to have a degree which, I notice, the hon. the Minister also had difficulty in pronouncing—it is a bit of a mouthful—namely the degree of Baccalaureus Procurationis, which no doubt will be known as B.Proc. in English and in Afrikaans, if only because it is in Latin. Sir, a pleasing feature of this Bill is that it does not affect prospective attorneys who do their articles when they have a bachelor’s degree and then do their LL.B. over three years and those who in fact have an LL.B. degree already. It does not affect that position at all. One hopes that the law societies will be successful in persuading sufficient universities to give a course which can be taken not only by correspondence but also part-time in the city areas by the articled clerks concerned.

In so far as the extra number of articled clerks who may be articled to attorneys’ firms are concerned, this also has the support of the profession and there seems no reason why this should not occur. We believe that the application of the Act to South-West Africa is a very good thing. It is a very good thing that the high standards and the high standard of ethics of this part of the profession in South Africa should be standardized and should obtain in as large an area as possible. Sir, at this stage we therefore give this Bill our wholehearted support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill supplements certain deficiencies in the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act of 1964 which came to light during the first session of the Council. The amendments are essential to allow for the smooth operation of the business of that Council and its administrative machinery. I should like to draw the attention of the House to these amendments.

Section 14 (1) makes provision for the election of a chairman, and further provides that whenever the chairman is for any reason unable to perform his duties, the Council shall elect another member as acting chairman. In practice, however, this means that whenever the chairman leaves the chair, an acting chairman has to be elected. Such a procedure is unrealistic and difficult to carry out.

In addition, the proviso to section 14 (3) provides for drawing of lots in case of an equality of votes for the election of a chairman or acting chairman. This procedure, too, was unsatisfactory in practice. Amendments in this connection are therefore essential. The amendments proposed in clause 1 of the Bill are based on section 48 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961), and sections 7 and 14 to 17 of the Standing Orders of this House. In the Committee Stage I shall move an amendment which will make it clear that the person referred to in the proposed section 14 (5) does not include the person referred to in the proposed section 14 (4).

Mr. Speaker, in Regulations Nos. 2 and 3 of the regulations drafted under the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act and promulgated by Government Notice No. R3540 of 17th October, 1969, provision is made for the convening of the Council. This is, however, a provision which, after the analogy of sections 25 and 72 of the Constitution in respect of Parliament and the Provincial Councils, actually belongs in Act No. 49 of 1964. Furthermore, in this Act and its regulations no provision whatsoever was made for prorogation. This has the effect. inter alia, that the first session of the Council is, strictly speaking, standing adjourned and in actual fact continues until it is terminated by prorogation.

The person who may prorogue the Council must obviously be the same person who may convene sessions. The best example of this is, of course, the case of the State President and Parliament. In order to supplement the existing deficiency and to place the whole matter on a sound basis, it is therefore now being provided that the Minister of Coloured Affairs may appoint times for the holding of sessions of the Council and may also prorogue the Council.

Mr. Speaker, as section 19 of the Act reads at present, the State President determines the allowances of the Executive, the Chairman of the Council and the members of the Council, and the determination of privileges is read into the word “allowances”.

In order to make it possible for the State President to determine the payment of allowances to other office-bearers of the Council as well, it is essential to supplement section 19 of the Act. The word “privileges” is also being added throughout in order to place beyond all doubt the interpretation of what the State President may determine.

The definition of “office-bearer” is being amended by the inclusion therein of the Deputy Chairman and Chairman of Committees, the Vice-Chairman of Committees, the Leader of the Official Opposition, the Chief Whip and the Assistant Whip of either of the two majority parties.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, two amendments affecting financial aspects are being proposed.

Firstly, in terms of section 22 (7) (b) of the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, 1964, the regulations made in terms of section 61bis of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, shall mutatis mutandis apply in connection with the administration, control, disbursement and spending of the funds of the Council. Section 61bis of the Exchequer and Audit Act was, however, repealed by section 14 of Act No. 86 of 1968, and the regulations promulgated in terms of the first-mentioned section likewise fell away. They were replaced with effect from 1st October, 1968, by regulations promulgated in terms of section 13 (1) of Act No. 86 of 1968. In the circumstances it is therefore necessary to bring the relevant section of Act No. 49 of 1964, up to date as soon as possible in so far as this changed position is concerned.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, with the transfer of functions to the Coloured Persons Representative Council on 1st July, 1969, the outstanding debts on the books of the former Department of Coloured Affairs as at 30th June. 1969, were automatically incorporated in the books of the Department of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs. The same applies to items not yet finalized in suspense accounts. In order to finalize the matter it is essential for all outstanding items in the disallowance, suspense and advances accounts as at 30th June, 1969, which relate to matters now dealt with by the Coloured Persons Representative Council, to be incorporated in the books of the Administration of Coloured Affairs as soon as possible. The only way in which this can be done is for the Administration to compensate the Department by way of a payment for outstanding items (debts) in the disallowance and advances accounts, and for the Department, in turn, to pay over to the Administration the moneys held in suspense accounts as at 30th June, 1969. It was argued that although the debts and items in the accounts were the result of transactions concluded before the establishment of the Coloured Persons Representative Council, they nevertheless related to functions which had been taken over by the Council. Moreover, that upon the transfer of such functions the rights and obligations attaching to the functions should also be transferred to the Council. A legal opinion which was obtained did not agree with this reasoning and clearly stated that as Act No. 49 of 1964 reads at present, the Council cannot be charged with debts incurred under a previous dispensation. Furthermore, that moneys in suspense accounts cannot be paid over to the Council either. This means that moneys may be made available to the Council only from the source explicitly mentioned in the Act, and may be used only for the purposes explicitly set out in the Act. The present position makes the task of both the Department and the Administration of Coloured Affairs more difficult and gives rise to confusion. It also makes proper control more difficult. There is no other way out than to make the essential adjustments mentioned by me possible by way of supplemention the Act. I may add that the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council considered and on 15th April, 1970, recommended the proposed amendments as contained in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity which the hon. the Minister has had to introduce legislation in regard to the Coloured people. We on this side of the House just want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his promotion, which has resulted in his now being in charge of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I think that the hon. the Minister, as a Cape man, is well acquainted with the very delicate problem with which he now has to deal. We think he has the necessary calm approach to deal with this matter, but whether he has the necessary insight will only become clear in the course of time. We on this side of the House nevertheless want to extend our congratulations and to tell him that we shall watch with interest how he is going to handle this particular department.

In the first place, I want to say that we have no objection to the adoption of this legislation at the Second Reading. The hon. the Minister explained to us for example, why clause 1 is necessary, i.e. because the new Coloured Persons Representative Council has just started off. He also said that this legislation has been introduced because proper provision must be made for the election of its Chairman, its Deputy Chairman and its Chairman of Committees. However, the interesting thing here is that, according to page 5, almost the same procedure will be followed as that which is followed here in Parliament. In other words, in the case of an equality of votes, the council shall adjourn forthwith and the matter shall be deemed to have been decided in the negative. Apparently this has to be done so that the representatives of the Coloured Council can be given the opportunity to caucus once again and to see once again whether they cannot arrive at a proper decision. It is interesting that the system of drawing lots will be abolished. We trust that in this respect they will follow the example set by this Parliament.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, I just want to say that in looking at the minutes of the first meeting of the new Coloured Persons Representative Council one sees on page 34 that a motion was moved by Mr. Tom Swartz which reads as follows—

In other words, the attitude was adopted here that the Chairman of the Councill if he considers it expedient, may put forward or delay the date of resumption of the Council. I presume that this is the attitude that was adopted by the Council. In clause 2 of the Bill, however, the Minister is proposing an amendment in this connection. It is correct that powers will be given to someone in order to prorogue or to summon the Council. If one looks at the powers which, for example, the Transkeian Parliament, has, it is very clear that when it comes to the prorogation of their Legislative Assembly, it is left in the hands of the Chief Minister. In other words, that body to a large extent decides for itself when it will meet. With their experience the Coloured Persons Representative Council ought ot be able to do what the Legislative Assembly of the Bantu can do. Why must it be left to the hon. the Minister in this case? In the case of the new section 15 (2) (b) I can see that it is essential to have this provision with a view to the session which will take place this year. This Parliament of ours must, after all, in the first instance approve of the Coloured Affairs Vote, on which approximately R73 million will be spent. R67 million will then be transferred to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. This I can understand, but we on this side will suggest during the Committee Stage that it will be better in this case to leave that power to the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself, so that the Council may decide when it is to be summoned or not.

As far as clause 3 is concerned, we have no objection, because it is absolutely essential that privileges should also be granted to the office-bearers of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. What is of course interesting, and significant too, is the definition of an office-bearer of the Council in clause 5. In conntction with the Whips of the Council it it said: “… holds office as … Chief Whip or Assistant Whip of either of the two majority parties”. It is strange to note that there can be more than one majority party. This is possible to-day, because as a result of the power which this Government has, it can nominate a large number of these Councillors, so that it may happen that there is more than one majority party. The hon. the Minister therefore has to have this power. A majority party need not necessarily be elected by the Coloured voters. A majority party can also exist as a result of the nomination of members. It is indeed a strange provision which is being made here. I do not want to criticize it, but it is as a result of the circumstances prevailing there that the hon. the Minister has to make this provision. For the rest we have no objection to this, apart from the point I mentioned in connection with the summoning and the prorogation of the Council. In the Committee Stage we shall move an amendment to this effect and in accordance with the attitude of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. the Minister on assuming this new portfolio. I would not say that he has taken on a problem. I do not consider the Coloured people of South Africa a problem. I do consider that he is taking on responsibility for the welfare of 2 million people, and I certainly wish him well in that task. I wish the people for whom he is now going to be responsible, also well under his ministry.

I do not think that I can support the Bill before the House to-day, because I think that the clause which reduces the powers of the Council, namely clause 2, is a principle of this Bill, which is very important. I believe that already the Coloured Representative Council is severely limited in its scope of action. Any of the legislation that comes before the Council, must first have been approved of by this House, the Minister and the Department of Coloured Affairs. I believe that it is unable to initiate any legislation of its own. It is circumscribed in its powers to a very severe degree. I cannot see any reason whatever why the hon. the Minister should now introduce a Bill which is going to give him the power to call the sessions of the Council together. I realize that there are technical difficulties, owing to the powers of proroguing not having been included in the original Bill. But all the same, I do not think that clause 2 has been justified in any way by the hon. the Minister. Section 26 of the Act, namely the regulations section, as I read it, gives the Minister powers to make regulations in regard to the sessions of the Council and the meetings of the executive. In fact, on the 17th October, 1969, regulations were promulgated which provided that, firstly—

Second,y the regulations laid down—

I cannot see any reason for changing that measure. I cannot see why it still should not be left to the Chairman to summon sessions of the Council in between the summoning of each main session. Indeed, as the hon. member has already pointed out, the Chairman in fact had a resolution passed that the Council should adjourn until the 20th August, 1970. That Council has not met again. Apparently it was not allowed to meet. We have not been given any explanation as to why it did not meet. This was an adjourned session, since the proroguing authority had not been given. But I cannot see any reason why the 20th August session did not take place. I now understand the session is to be called for some time in November. That will presumably give time for the new building to be ready, so that due pomp and ceremony can accompany the opening of that new building.

But this Bill, in effect, is now reducing the powers of the Chairman. It means that the hon. the Minister takes complete powers to call together the Council, once it has adjourned. I do not see why this particular power should not have been left with the Council and its Chairman. This is a reduction of its already very limited powers. As I say, for that reason I am not able to support this Bill. I do not believe any amendment moved at Committee Stages will be able to alter the principle which is going to be accepted now. I may be wrong in that. However, this is the feeling I have. I have much experience in the past of leaving important clauses over to the Committee Stage of a Bill, and then, when amendments are moved, they are found to be not in order because the principle has already been accepted at Second Reading. Therefore, I wish to take this very first opportunity of recording my objection to the further limitation of the powers of the Council by opposing the Second Reading of the Bill. As I say, I do not think the Coloured Representative Council in any case has very wide powers because they are so circumscribed by the very Act which brought them into existence. I do not in any way wish to condone further limitations of those powers.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I appreciate the congratulations extended to me by the hon. member for Newton Park on behalf of the Official Opposition.

†I should also like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Houghton for associating herself with those wishes.

*The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the clause in which the definition of office-bearers is being amended in order to include the Whips and the Assistant Whips of either of the two majority parties. I shall take a look at it. I may just say, however, that I have made inquiries and that the law advisers have given me the assurance that the wording of the clause is in accordance with what I have in mind in this connection, i.e. that the Chief Whips and the Assistant Whips of the two parties which have the most members will receive the allowances for office-bearers, i.e. the office-bearers of both the governing party and the opposition party in terms of the present Constitution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. If in terms of the wording, however, this is not the position, I shall be prepared to look at it during the Committee Stage. The intention is that the Whips of both the governing party and the party with the second largest number of seats should be included in terms of the Constitution of the Coloured Persons Representative Council.

Both the speaker on behalf of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Houghton made a further remark about this Bill and suggested that a curtailment of the powers of the Coloured Persons Representative Council was being proposed here.

Our point was just that it should be given to them.

In terms of the present Constitution the position is that the Council cannot be prorogued. Both these two hon. members stated quite rightly that it was correct to insert this prorogation provision. If the Council had been convened on 20th August or before 20th August, as had been provided for in the resolution adopted by the Council when it adjourned until 20th August, it would merely have been an adjourned meeting which was resumed. Then the old agenda which remained at the adjournment would still have stood and the Leader of the Opposition of the Coloured Persons Representative Council would not have been able to move a motion, because it would just have been an adjourned meeting. I do not think there can be any difference about this. My attitude in this matter is that we only want to bring their position into line with that of this Parliament. When we have assembled here and have dispatched our business in this House, the Prime Minister moves that the House adjourn until a date which he usually specifies. And at the first occasion after our rising, an announcement by the State President, in terms of the powers he has, to the effect that the session of this House has been prorogued is published in the Government Gazette. Then the House is prorogued and Parliament is summoned by the State President to meet for the opening of Parliament on the date to which is stands adjourned.

†That is all that we want to do here, except that at this stage of the constitutional development of the Coloured Representative Council the State President does not come into the reckoning, whatever the future may be. This clause now only gives to the Minister for Coloured Affairs the duties and the rights which the State President enjoys with regard to this Parliament. Personally, I feel that it is not a diminution of rights; it is not something we are trying to take away. What we are actually doing, is trying to give more status to this Representative Council. Its Chairman still has the right at any time to move an adjournment. The Council would be absolutely unable to function if its Chairman did not have that power. That is something that will be given to them under their Standing Rules and Orders. I believe notice has been given of a Bill to that effect by my Deputy Minister. Surely the Chairman of the Council or the Leader of the Council will always have the right to move an adjournment to a certain date. Then they meet, in the normal course of events, on that date to which the Council stands adjourned.

May I ask why they did not meet on the 20th August?

Well, the reason why they did not meet on the 20th of August is that it was not a firm date. The date was moved. We wanted to get the legislation through to enable us to prorogue the session of the Coloured Representative Council. If they had met on the 20th August—surely they could have met for business purposes—it would not have been a new session, as the hon. member realizes. It would just have been an adjourned session. I can assure the hon. member that the Coloured Representative Council themselves did not want it that way. They requested that we amend the Act so as to prorogue it. When they meet again they wanted to start an absolutely new session. In addition we must remember that this Council is, if I may put it so, in its experimental stage.

Why did you not follow the constitution of the Transkei?

Why should we? Why can they not follow the constitution of the Republic, of this Parliament? I think it is a better procedure to try and follow the constitution of our Parliament for the Coloured Representative Council. I have not studied the constitution of the Transkei.

You give the Chief Minister the power.

In any case, here we give it to the Minister who is acting in the place of the State President, vis-à-vis the Coloured Representative Counciil. That is all I can say. I will look into the points that were raised here before the Committee Stage, but I personally feel that our doing it in this way is correct.

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

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members will notice, this is the second Bill of this nature introduced this year. This simply goes to prove how fluid pension funds and schemes are and how rapidly circumstances affecting pension matters develop, so much so that adjustments have to be made constantly. I should like to emphasize the fact that no existing rights or privileges of pensioners or officials are being affected adversely by these proposals but that the proposals will, on the contrary, result in ever-improving pension provision.

For the information of hon. members I should like to deal with the provisions in brief. In order to implement the accepted recommendation of the Interdepartmental Committee on the Pension Schemes for Officers of the Public Service and Railways that transfers between Government-controlled pension funds and schemes be made compulsory, i.e. that a person may not withdraw his benefits from a fund if he goes from one employer to another and in that way lose valuable pensionable service, it is necessary to effect suitable amendments to the provisions of the Acts concerned in terms of which regulations are made for the management and control of pension funds and schemes. This step does not affect anyone detrimentally as the former fund of a member becomes liable for the full amount required by the new fund in respect of such a member’s period of service under his former fund. Previously considerable shortfalls often had to be paid in by members themselves, even in the case of voluntary transfers.

In this regard clauses 1, 3 (1) (d) and (e), 7 and 13 seek to amend the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, the Government Service Pensions Act, the Government non-White Employees Pensions Act and the Provincial and The Territory Service Pension Act, respectively.

Another recommendation by said committee was accepted to the effect that if any Government employee is obliged to retire because of an injury sustained in the execution of his duties, or dies from such injury, the benefits payable to him, or his dependants, in addition to the awards in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, be increased by 10 per cent for every R1,000 by which the pensionable earnings of the employee exceed the earnings on which compensation is calculated by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. I realize that this is complicated, and for that reason I should like to give an example. The maximum earnings for the purposes of the Workmen’s Compensation Act amount to only R1,800. So, for example, a senior official in receipt of a salary of R9,000 per annum, who, because of an infection contracted in the course of the execution of his official duties which results in total paralysis, will, in addition to the award interms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, receive an addition of 72 per cent on his normal pension benefits. This is calculated by deducting R1,800 from the amount of R9,000 and then adding it at 1 per cent of each R100 of his normal pension benefits. It is felt that the compensation on the present basis is completely inadequate and clause 3 (1) (a) and (c) seeks to provide the necessary authority for the making of regulations to make provision for this concession.

Clause 6 seeks to eliminate a shortcoming which detrimentally affects at least two, as far as can be ascertained, former members of this House who retired at the time of the last election. As it happens, these two members belonged to two different parties in this House. Although they served for periods considerably in excess of 25 years, they had less than the required 22½ years pensionable (contributory) service on 1st April, 1968, on account of official offices they occupied many years ago, and they now receive smaller pensions than those they were intended to receive.

The Social Pensions Acts make provision for the promulgation of regulations, but not with retrospective effect. The administration of these Acts, which are also applicable to other races, has consequently been entrusted by proclamation to other Ministers concerned. Problems are being experienced in promulgating regulations in good time when changes have to take effect on a particular date as a result of, for example, the increase of pensions. If the regulations are not promulgated in good time, as a result of administrative delays, the payment of such pensions is, in fact, irregular and may be to the detriment of beneficiaries. Clauses 8 to 11 therefore make provision for the promulgation of regulations, also with retrospective effect, in terms of the Acts mentioned therein.

At the request of the provincial authorities section 5 of the Provincial and the Territory Service Pension Act, in terms of which retirement ages are prescribed, is being amended to a small degree so as to make the provisions less oppressive and so as to provide more flexibility especially in respect of teachers who may at present retire only at the end of the year. In terms of clause 12 it will be possible for them in future to retire, for example, at the end of a calendar term as well.

Temporary allowances and supplementary allowances are paid to civil pensioners subject to particular conditions in terms of section 22 of Act 98 of 1969. It often happens that over-payments are made because of ignorance on the side of a beneficiary, or sometimes because of human office errors, and the fact that such over-payments have to be recovered, may cause great hardship to a pensioner. The Social Pensions Act, on the other hand, makes provision for the remission under certain circumstances of over-payments which have not resulted from wilful fraud. In all fairness to civil pensioners it has been decided to deal with over-payments of allowances which may be made in respect of them, on the same basis as those in respect of social pensioners. The necessary provision for this we find in clause 14.

Members on the staff of associated institutions, such as the universities, technical colleges and other State-aided institutions are mainly members of one of the following three pension funds, i.e. the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions, the University Institutions Provident Fund or the Technical Colleges Provident Fund. In 1963 the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions was established as the benefits offered by the two provident funds were regarded as inadequate. There were, in fact, members of the provident funds who decided to remain members of those funds. They are mostly pre-1950 members who are entitled to both a cash amount from the fund as well as an additional benefit. At present there still are approximately 3,000 such members. The formula according to which an additional benefit is calculated for this group is based, as it has been for many years, on the average earnings over the last seven years of service. In recent times, however, the Government has made considerable concessions in respect of pension funds which include, inter alia, the increase of the guaranteed rate of interest from 4 per cent to 4½ per cent and the shortening of the period for the calculation of the average earnings on which retirement benefits are based, from seven years to four years and subsequently to three years. These concessions already apply to members of the Pension Fund for Associated Institutions who have retired since the end of 1969. It is the intention to benefit their colleagues who are members of the other two funds, i.e. the provident funds, and who retire, in a similar way, and clauses 15 and 16 will make provision for this.

For the rest, the opportunity offered by this Bill is being used for rectifying certain shortcomings, for effecting a consequential amendment and for stating more clearly certain intentions, which are obvious, as is evident from the provisions of clauses 2, 4 and 5. With this, I think, I have adequately elucidated this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which is now before the House has the approval and the support of this side of the House. We believe that it is an important step in ironing out certain difficulties which have arisen in the administration of the various Pensions Acts administered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. The hon. the Minister has had an opportunity of studying the recommendations of the interdepartmental committee, which made an investigation into the various funds administered by his Department. Those recommendations are evidently now incorporated in this Bill. I think it is important that, where these administrative difficulties do occur, every effort should be made to rectify them as soon as possible. A feature of the Bill before us is that many of these clauses have retrospective effect. They go back a number of years. Indeed, in one of the clauses, namely clause 2, which amends the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act of 1963, an amendment is being made in regard to the delegation of powers, and this provision is retrospective to the date when the Act came into operation, namely 1st August. 1963. This covers a period of some seven years.

An important aspect of this Bill deals with the transferability of pension rights from one fund to another where a government employee is transferred from one department to another or from one tier of government to another tier of government, such as from a provincial administration to the Central Government or vice versa. It is important that such a person’s pension rights should be protected and that every effort should be made to facilitate the transfer of his pension rights and of his pensionable service. This is now being attended to in this Bill, and this is one of the principles involved that has our full support.

Then I would like to refer to the provisions of clause 3 as they affect a Government employee who may be entitled to workmen’s compensation in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941. The hon. the Minister did give us an example as to how he intends implementing this alleviation which is to be granted either to the employee who receives workmen’s compensation at a set maximum figure or to the dependants of the Government employee who has lost his life during the course of his duty. We know that the Select Committee on Pensions has dealt in the past with cases where the compensation paid to employees under the Workmen’s Compensation Act was very small indeed, particularly where the employee concerned has not had a large number of years of pensionable service, which would have entitled his dependants to a pension which would adequately compensate them for the loss of life of the breadwinner. This Bill seems to provide that this will be attended to by means of regulations, and the hon. the Minister has given an indication as to how he intends to apply this increased benefit to this particular group of persons.

Sir, another clause which I believe also calls for some comment is clause 14 which deals with the question of over-payments of various allowances payable to civil pensioners. The position in this regard is sometimes rather confusing to many pensioners. The provisions of clause 14 are very wide in that the Minister or the Secretary of the Department or an officer who may be designated by the Secretary or by the Minister has the discretion to write off an over-payment which might have been made to a pensioner where the over-payment was made without the knowledge of the pensioner that the over-payment was made to him in error. Sir, the question of over-payments as far as social pensioners are concerned, is one which causes a great deal of concern and indeed sometimes hardship. The provisions which are incorporated in clause 14 indicate that the hon. the Minister is endeavouring to make the same concession to civil pensioners in regard to the writing off in certain circumstances of over-payment unwittingly accepted by them. However, there is a slight difference in that where an over-payment has been made to a social pensioner the period of the concession is limited to three years. As far as this clause is concerned there is no limitation of the period over which this concession granted to a civil pensioner may be extended. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give this House a little more information with regard to the practical application of clause 14, because the various paragraphs of this clause provide that the Minister or a senior official of his Department must be satisfied that the amount that was over-paid was received without the pensioner realizing that he was not entitled to that award. It is also provided that the Treasury or any person authorized thereto by the Treasury may at his discretion write off any portion of the amount which is repayable in terms of the previous subsection. One of the proposed new subsections also provides that if the Minister is satisfied that any allowance which is being paid to any person in terms of subsection (1) should be cancelled, reduced or increased, he may, with due regard to the circumstances of such person and to the rates and conditions determined in terms of paragraph (a) of that subsection, cancel, reduce or increase the allowance. Sir, it will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister can give the House some indication as to the application of this particular concession, particularly as far as the period of time is concerned, because he will realize that it can cause great embarrassment to a person if he suddently finds that he has been over-paid a certain amount, over a long period of time. I do hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to indicate to the House that the three-year period which is provided for in the case of social pensioners who have been over-paid and who may be called upon to refund such over-payments, will also apply under this clause.

The other clauses in this Bill are mainly of an administrative nature. We believe that it is important that the various aspects concerning the administration of these funds should he streamlined as much as possible so as to overcome these difficulties in practical application We on this side of the House therefore support the Bill.

I want to thank the hon. member immediately for his support of this Bill on behalf of the Opposition. We realize that we are dealing here with measures which seek to benefit our pensioners and to eliminate as far as possible administrative problems which arise. As regards the period prescribed, I just want to say that a maximum period of three years is applicable in respect of the overpayment of social pensions even if the overpayment has been made over a longer period. This will also be applicable in this case. I want to give this assurance to the hon. member at once, and I think this adequately answers that question. If there are any further problems, we can iron them out during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, on various occasions the necessity for country-wide action to be taken in respect of the conservation of the water resources of the Republic has been pointedly brought to our notice by both this and that side of the House. As a consequence of this provision was made in the Forest Act, 1968, the Water Act, 1956. and the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, for statutory provisions which may be applied in order to exercise more effective control over mountain catchment areas.

The protection measures in catchment areas, both State and privately owned, as applied by the various Government departments under whose control mountain catchment areas fall, did not always promote co-ordinated action. It is for that reason, therefore that the Government decided to centralize the task of the protection of mountain catchment areas, be they privately or State-owned, as from 1st April, 1970, and to entrust this matter to the Department of Forestry. The Bill before the House at the moment will grant the necessary statutory powers in terms of which mountain catchment areas will in future be managed more effectively than is the case at present.

This Bill can be regarded as a further step, in the direction of the planned use of land and water. The implementation of this Act will force us to consider and determine priorities in the use of land and water. We shall have to make a study of all the mountains and plateaux constituting the catchment areas of our most important rivers, and we shall have to decide what parts thereof are to be defined and managed for the exclusive purpose of developing the water supply potential —not only for the purpose of supplying the maximum quantity of water, but also for the purpose of ensuring the purity of the water and the permanence of the source.

Once mountain areas have been declared to be catchment areas, the conservation and provision of water will have preference, but this need not mean that the areas may not be used for other purposes as well. Parts of such areas may quite possibly be made available, to some extent, for grazing purposes, and will most certainly under proper control, be accessible for the purposes of outdoor recreation. In the Western Cape the brushland is at present regarded as being the ideal vegetal cover for water conservation, and it is in fact in this brush and that the famous wealth of flowers of the Cape develops into its full splendour. Therefore, the conservation of this unique heritage, too, is quite consistent with the main object of water conservation.

For the information of hon. members I now want to proceed to dealing with certain aspects of the Bill as incorporated in the various clauses thereof. Hon. members will notice that in terms of clause 2 of the Bill I may declare certain areas to be mountain catchment areas. It is not my intention to act in an autocratic manner in this regard, but I shall allow myself to be guided by an interdepartmental committee, which will be established for this purpose. The interdepartmental committee will consist of representatives of the Departments of Forestry, of Water Affairs and of Agricultural Technical Services. This committee will co-opt local interest groups, which will not only include representatives of organized agriculture, but also persons who are directly concerned in the water supplies of a particular mountain catchment area. It is in fact in this regard that a distinction will be drawn between the mountain catchment areas established in terms of this Bill, and the fire protection areas established in terms of the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act, 1969. Fire protection areas in terms of the latter Act were effected on a fiscal basis, and consequently they comprise large tracts of good agricultural land which, from a water conservation angle, do not necessarily require special protection. When mountain catchment areas are defined, in terms of the Bill now under discussion, arable agricultural land will not be included in mountain catchment areas.

When the directions are drafted which, in terms of clause 3 of this Bill, will be declared to be applicable, regard will be had to the recommendations made by advisory committees, which will be established in terms of clause 6. The Bill makes provision for organized agriculture to be represented on the advisory committees.

Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill are self-explanatory and do not call for any further comment.

It follows that the Department of Forestry will not immediately have at its disposal all the necessary equipment and staff for taking over the functions of all the existing fire protection committees in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, and for that reason provision is being made in clause 7 for the continued existence of these committees. These fire protection committees will in Afrikaans be known under the new name of “brandbeveiligingskomitees”, and their composition and functions will be redefined to fit in better with this Bill.

Clause 10 of the Bill makes provision for financial aid to be rendered to fire protection committees and to the owners or occupiers of land in respect of the performance of any act by them in compliance with any direction in terms of clauses 3 and 8 of the Bill. The Bill was submitted to organized argiculture, and has the full support of that body. It is also applicable to Bantu Trust lands, and in regard to the implementation of the legislation relating to Bantu Trust areas the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will act on behalf of the Department of Forestry.

What a pity.

I also want to bring to the notice of hon. members the fact that I intend to entrust to the Department of Forestry the conservation and management of mountain catchment control areas which were declared to be such areas in terms of section 59 (2) of the Water Act, 1956. By doing this the management of all major catchment areas in the country will, as soon as this Bill has been agreed to, be under the control of one Government Department, and the ideal which has been advocated in this House ever since 1934, will then be realized. The transfer to the Department of Forestry of such areas as were declared to be catchment control areas in terms of section 59 (2), will be effected administratively and does not require any statutory amendment at this stage.

Before. I conclude, I should like to make it clear that it is not the intention to effect overnight a drastic change to the utilization of land in mountain catchment areas. Nor can this be effected overnight. If, in the interests of the water supply potential, it should appear to be necessary that the use of land within such areas be adapted, this adaptation will be effected in such a manner that it will result in as little disruption and sacrifice as possible. This is very clear, since major financial implications are involved. For instance, it may be necessary to impose restrictions on the planting of trees in certain catchment areas. In respect of those mountain catchment areas or catchment control areas which are afforested already, the owners will probably be granted time until their standing timber can be exploited economically, but they will not be allowed to re-establish them.

I am convinced that what has been incorporated in this Bill, is what hon. members on both sides of the House have for many years been requesting from time to time, and that this Bill is a compliance with requests made by various sectors, recently as well. This was done especially in times of drought, when the fear which gripped the country was so much worse than had ever been experienced before. As a result of the ideas put forward by hon. members in this House from time to time, and also by people outside who, generally speaking, were unanimous, I trust that this will be regarded as a very important step forward in the determination of the road to better control over our mountain catchment areas and our water resources. I am convinced that this Bill will receive general support both inside and outside this House.

Mr. Speaker, let me say at once that we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this measure. It would be strange if we were to oppose the principle. The hon. the Minister said just now that we on this side of the House have pleaded for a measure of this kind for many years. The hon. the Minister has now brought this measure to this House. Here again we have been in difficulty in dealing with a particular measure that it deals with water conservation and soil conservation and also with the whole question of what we call the “high berg areas”, the forestry areas, where soil conservation comes into the picture as such an important aspect. From the point of view of the protection and the conservation of our natural resources I rank this as probably the most important Bill that we have had before Parliament for many a year. It introduces one or two new principles which particularly commend themselves to us and where we want to say to the hon. the Minister that we believe he is taking the right course and that he is being bold. He has come forward with a measure which can get the support of both sides of the House and also the public.

In this regard I want to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. It is not one that I make lightly or usually to any Minister. From time to time I have heard the hon. the Minister in broadcasts over the S.A.B.C. I have always felt that that was an indication of moral courage. I want to suggest that in the not too distant future, perhaps in substitution for the programme “Current Affairs”, the hon. the Minister might get a chance over the S.A.B.C. to put across more or less the speech he has made here to-day at the Second Reading. The public do not read Hansard and this matter is not going to be widely reported. Its importance is not going to be noticed now, but in the years that lie ahead of us. People will then point to this Bill as something which broke new ground and introduced new principles as to the conservation of our natural resources in South Africa. I want to ask that he put this matter over the S.A.B.C. in the same manner as he has alone before in regard to other matters dealing with the Department of Water Affairs. I believe it will do a tremendous amount of good in alerting the public to precisely the line our legislation is taking and the fact that the hon. the Minister can say that he has the support of the whole of Parliament behind him. There is not going to be a discordant note raised in regard to the principles of this Bill. Whether the hon. the Minister can get his colleague to agree to arrange with the S.A.B.C. to give him that opportunity I do not know. It is something which is beyond our ken and we do not know how the machine works.

A little later on I will deal with some of the details of the Bill. I will do this not because I want to go into the Committee Stage now, but because I want to draw pertinently to the hon. the Minister’s attention two or three points which we believe could be altered to the benefit of the Bill and which he may possibly be prepared to consider and then move amendments. We do not want to move amendments from this side of the House in this regard. There will be several speakers on this side of the House and I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the points raised by them. When I say that there will be several speakers on this side of the House, it will be because the subject permits of a number of first class speeches in connection with the conservation of our natural resources. We want to do it so as to emphasize the importance which this side of the House, at any rate, attaches to the principles underlying this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has dealt with it from the point of view of water conservation. We have pointed out the difficulty we are in because it deals with soil conservation. Here we come to that old difficulty, namely water conservation and forestry under one Minister and soil conservation under another Minister. I am not reflecting on the other Minister in any way whatsoever, and I will never fail to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the fact that we managed to have water affairs and forestry under one Minister. It was very unlikely that we would have a grave dispute in the Cabinet between the Minister of Forestry and the Minister of Water Affairs, when once we managed to have the two portfolios under the same Minister. That ruled out that kind of difficulty. But where does soil conservation come in? Soil conservation is one of the basic principles along with water conservation. So we on this side of the House necessarily had to deal with this problem and say that we wished the Minister all success. We know that he is going to have some headaches. That is beyond any dispute. But one of these days, somewhere in the run of government, no doubt it will be possible for soil conservation to be brought into an all-embracing statute which will deal with water and at the same time with forestry, and those features which go with soil and water conservation. They form a comprehensive whole. They form one concept and they are basic as far as our soil and water conservation in South Africa is concerned.

Having said that, may I say that we look upon this Bill as the beginning of legislation dealing with the concept of multiple use of land, particularly in our high berg areas. One of these days we are going to be short of land on which to work here in South Africa. Other countries are in that trouble to-day. They have polluted their rivers and one of the greatest lakes in the world in countries abroad. They are polluting the atmosphere, which is to-day called the environment. Our environment is being hopelessly polluted. Heaven only knows what globular sums will be required to try and clarify, purify and put right the damage which mankind is doing to its own environment. People are told that they should not have a gas stove in a room and then shut up the doors and windows, because they will die of carbon monoxide poisoning. That seems to be simple. But they do not seem to understand that on a wider scale we are doing that to the whole of the atmosphere. We are doing it to the soil and to our water supplies. We are doing precisely that. It is apparent in the narrow sphere; it is not so apparent in a wider sphere.

So I say that this Bill to us on this side of the House is the beginning of the Government stepping in to make provision for the multiple use of land for various purposes. Multiple usage is possible. If we are short of room in which to work, how much more are we short of room in which to play? The other day at Midmar, the big dam under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister where we are developing certain areas, the first big Indian recreation area in South Africa, as far as I know, has been created, and it was opened by one of my colleagues on the Natal Parks Board. Unfortunately I could not do it. In that Indian area at Midmar to-day we are already getting up to 4,000 and 5,000 Indians per week. Sometimes we are getting in 20,000 per month. A quarter of a million Indians alone are already coming in each year to take advantage of the facilities there. Where are the people of South Africa going to play, never mind to work? When we cannot play any longer, when we do not have adequate open space with God’s fresh air and the countryside in South Africa as we know it, in which we can go and get recreation, our souls are gong to atrophy. We will be a small people because we will have no outlook.

We believe that this Bill now opens the door. It is the key to open doors for the multiple use of our land. I am not going to say that there are no difficulties there. I am a forester. I grow trees. I know what it is to let people come in on picnics in your plantation and to tell them to enjoy themselves. If you are not careful, the first thing they do is to bring along a spade and dig up all the young ferns and everything from the banks of your streams. That is but one of the difficulties you have to deal with.

What does the other bloke then do? He waits until there is a howling gale and then he lights his campfire to cook his billy. So we have to deal with that. These are practical difficulties. We know it. But other countries have had to deal with it. They coped with it. It can be coped with successfully. We have experience. The areas we visualize as likely to be proclaimed by the hon. the Minister in terms of this Act, we say can be the beginning of the areas in which there will be accepted the principle of multi-use of our land. They will not only be areas where trees are grown, but a place where people can go. Within certain limits and under certain disciplines they can go for walks, sit in the open air, enjoy themselves and participate in those forest areas, the goodness of nature. In other areas other diversions can be made available for them. There is no need for great expenditure. The people should just be allowed to go there. The multiple use of land, we believe, is implicit in what is here.

Now I want to come to the one principle where we believe the hon. the Minister has broken new ground and where we are entirely behind him. That is that when private land falls in one of the proclaimed areas proclaimed by the Minister in terms of this Bill, compensation may be paid. This proclaimed area may be the property of a farmer on which he raises his stock, plants trees, and which he uses for other agricultural purposes. When the Minister proclaims that farm and that proclamation in some way limits the owner in his economic development and the economic use of that farm so that he is restricted in the benefits he can obtain, the hon. the Minister is providing that he can get compensation. That we believe is a great principle. We stand behind it entirely. We say there are cases where the public necessity will demand that there shall be a limitation on the powers of private landowners, to use their land as they will and for whatever purpose they will, particularly in the berg areas and the high rainfall areas. We accept that it has to be limited in some cases, but we say that compensation shall be paid to him and the hon. the Minister is providing for the payment of such compensation in this Bill. I believe that one of these days in these areas we will get round to an acceptance of the position that that land must be acquired by the State for the people.

For the time being this is a good provision. But it is only a step. The time will come when the owner finds that he will be so restricted and so limited that he will say that his capital is still tied up. He may say that although he has been paid compensation, the price of land is going up. development is taking place all round and that he is holding land which is of no use to him. He will then go to his Member of Parliament—that will be me—and ask him what he can do about it. I will then go to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture who sits there and ask him to please get his Department of Land Tenure to buy this man out because under the proclamation of the Minister of Forestry this land cannot be used for farming. Compensation may have been paid, but the land is still there and this means that capital is still tied up. I believe that we will come to such a situation, perhaps not this year or next year, but perhaps it is one of the first things the United Party Government will do in the near future. This is one of the principles.

It will take some time still.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister first raised our spirits, then he fell down with a bump rather like some of the lifts that we have to use. The hon. the Minister has provided in the Bill that the scheduled Native areas are to be brought under the provisions of this Act. We support that. Then he says that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will do all this administering of these areas on behalf of his Department. Then the groans of this side of the House were heard. I am sorry, that is not the answer.

Those were organized groans.

Organized groans? Mr. Speaker, there are some things that come involuntarily from a person’s heart. And the groans on this side of the House when the hon. the Minister said that, were quite involuntary and from their hearts. But it is a start. One of these days an inspector will go along and face the hon. the Minister squarely through his Secretary for Forestry and will say: “Mr. Minister, I have been watching the proceedings for the last two to five years and it does not work out. It is not working.” The hon. the Minister will then say: “Next week I am handing over to a Minister of the United Party. He will take the job in hand and make it apply.” So we will get past this difficulty. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to cast his mind back and to think what has happened to the Ngoya forests and other forests that were handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration some few years ago in terms of legislation. These are the areas that could have been protected if we had legislation like this. They are the patrimony, the heritage of the people of South Africa, White and non-White. For the people of South Africa that was part of their heritage. But this Bill was not there and the damage is done. But this can prevent that kind of damage going any further. We therefore welcome the Bill. We believe that it is the start of legislation leading to the multiple use of land. We ask the hon. the Minister to look at it from that point of view. From this side of the House he can rely on our support.

These points we would like to deal with I will mention to the hon. the Minister briefly because we hope that he will go into the question of any amendments. Clause 2 provides that the Minister may by notice in the Gazette define any area and declare that area to be a mountain catchment area, and so forth. But there is no notice of his intention to do that. People affected therefore do not know that it is his intention to proclaim such an area. They are affected to this extent that later on in the Bill they can actually claim compensation for the diminution of their rights of usage of their land. In the Forestry Act the South African Agricultural Union was brought into our legislation, as far as I know, for the first time. While we are not pressing the point we do suggest to the hon. the Minister that that is a good precedent which could be used here. By and large we will be dealing with farming folk. Through the South African Agricultural Union and its affiliated societies and so forth, farmers are going to be brought into a greater appreciation of the co-operation which they can get through their own organizations and the value it has to them. It will allow the Minister a way out. He does not then have to worry about the different organizations and individuals if he could use that particular body.

I also want to say from this side of the House to the hon. the Minister that we do not want to fetter him to such an extent that difficulties are created of such a character that an individual person, for whatever the reason may be, who is not prepared to go along with the Minister could then go to court and get interdicts, start legal proceedings and hold up the whole thing for perhaps months on end, while legal processes are proceeded with. We do not want that. I can assure the hon. the Minister that we are not looking for that. When the hon. the Minister has reached a decision and wants to proclaim an area he should give the people concerned due notice so that the man who is interested in the matter and who may be detrimentally affected can be given the opportunity to write in and to explain the exact position. The first he knows about it under this Bill may be only when the proclamation itself is issued. He could then find that the time has passed when he can say something in respect of his own interest in the matter.

In clause 5 there is provision for the exemption of taxes imposed by a local authority on immovable property. Let us take the case of a private landowner. He has a farm up in the high berg which he uses for grazing, or whatever the purpose may be. It would be proclaimed in terms of this Act and the hon. the Minister would say to the man concerned that he cannot use that farm for grazing. It is no good for agriculture. It is no good for forestry. The farmer casts around and then finds that in fact he can use it for no purpose whatsoever. He can claim his compensation and quite rightly this clause states that a local authority cannot impose taxes on that farm because it is no good to the farmer and he cannot use it. Sir, we suggest that it is not only a question of taxes which are imposed by a local authority. All taxation in respect of that land should be prohibited. Once a person has been told that he cannot use his farm for any practical purpose or for any purpose of benefit to himself, and compensation has been paid to him, it is not fair to allow an authority to impose taxes on that land, because the farmer cannot then recoup his losses. In other words, there are authorities other than local authorities, as defined, which would be interested in the matter as well.

Another point we want to deal with has already been raised in the past in regard to other legislation. Clause 11 (2) states that “any officer, member or person referred to in subsection (1)—this refers to officers duly appointed by the department concerned—shall at all reasonable times have right of way over any land for the purpose of (a) ascertaining the desirability of declaring that land to be a mountain catchment area; (b) ascertaining the desirability of construction upon that land of fire belts …”, etc. These officers have a right of access at reasonable times for all the purposes associated with the proclamation of the land, and thereafter the use of the land, and so forth. Here again we should like to include a provision to the effect that an officer may have the right of access only after reasonable notice has been given. Provision is made for the absentee landlord in the Bill. One cannot expect the department to chase around all over the place, trying to establish the whereabouts of a person who owns a farm in the high berg, but never goes there and does not particularly worry about it. Provision is therefore made here for notices to be served under certain circumstances, but I feel that our proposal is reasonable because in terms of such a provision an officer will still not be hindered. He will still be entitled to his right of access, but he will first have to serve reasonable notice. Sir, I do not want to mention names, because the gentleman concerned is still alive, but I wonder whether the Minister has heard of this case? About three years ago this gentleman was involved in a law suit with the Post Office. This is the kind of thing which illustrates my point. This gentleman drew his power supply from the Electricity Supply Commission. A fault developed in the system and a linesman was despatched to go from farm to farm to try to locate the fault. It started raining, so the linesman donned his greatcoat and galoshes. It so happened that the owner of one of the farms he had to visit, together with his wife, had gone out. They had done what so many of us do. They had turned loose their two large “boerboel” dogs before leaving their farm. About 8 o’clock at night the linesman arrived, dressed in his greatcoat and galoshes. The dogs had a look at him and thought: “That chap does not look like a farmer”, and pitched into him. They ripped up his clothes and bit him to pieces. If the Electricity Supply Commission had only phoned the farmer beforehand to inform him that a linesman would be visiting the farm, the necessary precautions could have been taken. Instead, they sent the farmer an account for damages to the man and his clothes. The farmer would not pay and the case went to court. Ultimately the case went to the South African Agricultural Union. The farmer lost and had to pay. This is the reason why we should like to see provision made in this Bill to cover such a case. Such a provision is already contained, I think, in the Soil Conservation Act. It is common courtesy to give reasonable notice, and it is the decent thing to do, but we should like to have the provision in the Bill so that an officer cannot just call at a farm without giving notice and then say that it is a reasonable hour. Farmers and their wives go away from their homes just as other people do. If notice is given, there can be no trouble. We should therefore like to suggest that such a provision be included in the Bill.

In clause 17, provision is made for the Minister to delegate his powers to any officer in his Department, except the powers referred to in clause 13. Clause 13 entitles the Minister to make certain regulations. Here we agree that the Minister must reserve the right to make regulations. We know that the Minister does not prepare the regulations. They are prepared for him, but he is the one who eventually signs them. He is then answerable to Parliament. We should like to add a provision which will entitle only the Minister to proclaim a certain area. We do not want to see the Minister giving the basic and fundamental rights to proclaim an area to someone else, such as an official in his Department. We want the Minister to have two powers reserved to himself. Firstly he must have the right to proclaim an area, because private farms and other private property will be involved here. The Minister must be the one who issues such a proclamation. The Minister must be the one who published the regulations. As to the rest, he can delegate his powers to the appropriate officials. We on this side of the House will be satisfied with that because we realize that that will make for the smooth administration of this Bill.

Sir, I have spoken very few words to-day. I assure you that there is much to say in this regard. I do not want to use the material which so many members on this side are anxious to use in their speeches. With that, we commend the Bill. We believe that it is a step in the right direction. We believe it is a step in the direction of the multiple use of our natural resources.

Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the Opposition for their support of this Bill to-day. In spite of the indirect references of the hon. member for South Coast to “Current Affairs”, we believe that they have the interests of South Africa at heart.

To-day we are dealing with a Bill which, as the the Minister said, embraces the planned application of soil and water. That is why we want to welcome the Bill most heartily in this Water Year. All of us, and also the general public, have, as a result of the Water Year, become aware of how necessary water is, and of the greatness of our future needs. Not that in the past we have not realized the value of our mountain catchment areas, but there was a measure of confusion because various departments were responsible for this very important work. It is therefore to be welcomed that we are now gaining clarity in connection with this matter. There was the Department of Agricultural Credit, which had to purchase mountain catchment areas. Unfortunately this is a slow process, and it takes a great deal of capital to buy up mountain catchment areas. We believe, however, that it was right to purchase these lands. I want to proceed from the standpoint that the very best owner of our water catchment areas is still the State. If we look at clause 3 we see that provision is being made there for how the land should be used. Secondly, provision is also being made for how the land should be protected. The owner of that land is best able to take care of those ends. He may use his land as he wants to, and he may protect it as he wants to. That is why I should like to see us maintaining the policy of the State purchasing mountain catchment areas. This is desirable because this Bill binds the private owner.

In clause 10 we see that financial aid can be granted to private owners in respect of the combating the fires However, I do not see anywhere that financial aid can be granted in respect of other works in such areas. I now specifically have such matters in mind as the treatment and protection of natural vebetation, and the combating of intruding vegetation, which is mentioned in the Bill: but nowhere do I see that provision is being made for financial aid to private owners who want to tackle such work. I wonder whether the Minister could not also consider granting financial aid in respect of these steps that are necessary for the efficient protection of mountain catchment, areas. Sir, it is. of course, very important to combat fires; it is probably the most important of factors, but if we want to make proper use of our mountain areas, we must also give very serious attention to these other aspects, such as the intrusion of vegetation and the improvement of our plant growth I want to agree with the hon. member for South Coast that if we want to make the best and fullest use of these mountain catchment areas, we shall also have to do these things. Then we shall also be able to counteract polution, but we shall have to give financial aid to the private owner, because we cannot expect him to establish recreational facilities for the public.

Sir, as I have said, we have had various departments involved in this matter. We know that Water Affairs probably has the greatest interest, particularly if we think of our storage dams that are in danger of silting up. For specifically that purpose alone we must have this measure on the Statute Book. We must have it because it introduces a method by which we can protect our mountain catchment areas. In order to do so we shall have to do many things on the mountains. We shall have to ensure correct control and management. I am also glad—and here I want to agree with the hon. member for South Coast—that the Bantu areas are included. It is unfortunate that a large portion of our catchment area lies on a neighbouring state’s land. Here I particularly have Lesotho in mind, and I hope the hon. the Minister will urge Lesotho to protect its mountains in the same way as well. I hope they will co-operate with us.

Sir, I particularly want to welcome the fact that this Act is now going to be administered by the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry has already done a great deal of work along these lines, and to-day I want to pay special tribute to commissions of inquiry who have, in the past, taken an interest in these matters. I want to refer, in particular, to the inter-departmental committee of inquiry into a forestation and water supplies, which has issued its report just recently. I want to say thank you very much here to our present Secretary for Forestry, who acted as chairman of the commission. It is thanks to such work that we can come along to the House with this legislation to-day. They have, for the first time, given a clear picture of what is going on in our mountain catchment areas. The question about whether small plantations should be planted or not, was to a very large extent crystalized, and I think that we should say a special thank you to this commission.

In their report they also made very important recommendations, and I just want to refer to a few. They pointed to the great need that still exists in connection with research into our mountain catchment areas, and I should like to mention a few: The economic and hydrological implications of the proper management of mountain catchment areas; rainfall interception, evaporation, downflow, seepage and various water matters on our mountains, the control and management of vegetation on the mountains, and what vegetation would give us the best downflow. It is also recommended that hydrographic surveys should still be greatly extended, so that we can determine how much water comes from our mountains and what becomes of it. That is why I welcome the fact that this Act will specifically fall under the Department of Forestry, because I believe that they have the correct approach, and that they also have the facilities for the proper administration of this Act. I believe that this measure is going to create a new era for us in the control of our mountain catchment areas.

It is with particular pleasure that I associate myself with the hon. members for South Coast and Humansdorp in welcoming this Bill. In my constituency of Mooi River there are the only two areas in South Africa, as far as I know, which have been declared as catchment control areas. These are the areas which control the Nyamvubu, the Karkloof and the Yarrow River in one area, and the Ixopo River in the other. When the Minister was the Deputy Minister we remember with gratitude that he received a deputation from the Natal Agricultural Union, together with Senator Rall and myself, to hear representations from the farmers’ associations in these areas to attempt to find some kind of control which could be exercised over catchment areas with specific reference to the planting of trees. This was some years ago, at least three years ago, when the areas were actually proclaimed. The proclamations have been in force, but since the date of their proclamation the department has been unable to take action which would do what the proclamation intended to do, which was to define and to delimit certain areas where tree-planting could not take place, with the specific intention of preserving and maintaining the flow of water which has to-day become such a tremendously important aspect of our national life and an important topic of conversation in South Africa.

I want to welcome the manner in which the hon. the Minister this afternoon announced that this Bill would give him the power to deal with timber growers who have planted trees in areas where, in the opinion of the Department, they are prejudicing the supply of water. It was a low-keyed announcement; the Minister made the announcement that this could be done in the course of time and that where people have planted trees those trees would be allowed to mature, but that after that they would not be allowed to persist with ratoon growth or replanting in those particular areas. I think this is one of the ways, and perhaps the only way in which this particular matter can be handled. The Minister will find a problem in some of these areas where trees have been planted and where in terms of what he has just said those trees will have to be removed; because when you remove trees, what are you going to put in the place of those trees to hold the soil? If you have gum trees the physical task of removing a gum stump is such that it can only result in tearing up the ground to an extent which is probably even worse from the point of view of water conservation than allowing the gum tree to grow there. I say this because the hon. member for South Coast mentioned research. Some research will have to be done to find a way of eliminating—and I particularly mention the Saligna gum trees—those trees while allowing the stumps to remain in the ground, because the physical removal of those stumps is going to cause such damage to the catchment area itself that I do not think it can be contemplated. I mention the Saligna gum because in this particular area these are the trees that have been planted. I believe the hon. the Minister is going to have a tremendous task on his hands when he delimits the area, as he will have to do, and when he decides what areas which are now planted may no longer be planted, because the areas which were not planted at the date of proclamation, I can assure the hon. the Minister, have now been planted, because there was not the power in the Minister’s hands to prohibit the planting of trees in those areas. So the Minister is now faced with a fiar accompli; areas have been planted and I am convinced that he will have to require the owners of that ground to remove the trees. I think the Minister now has a problem on his hands which, with research, can be met. I think we have to have a very clear idea at the back of our minds as to what we are going to put into those areas to hold the soil so as to make sure that soil conservation does not suffer and that the flow of water does not suffer as the result.

The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned the report of the departmental committee. I associate myself with the congratulations which were given to the Secretary of Forestry and the Department for the report which was produced, because this Bill, which is based upon the recommendations of this committee, makes possible the management of our mountain catchment areas for water yield. The hon. the Minister has made it quite clear that it is his intention and also the report made it quite clear that under well-managed grass land the maximum yield of water can be expected. Obviously it is in the Minister’s mind when he takes these powers to manage and protect those areas by well-managed grass land. The all-important factor in the management of the grass land is that it should not be overgrazed and that it should not be burnt injudiciously. However, I do want to say with all sincerity that I would not have the department of Forestry regard fire as an enemy, because fire is a tool of conservation. I think it is accepted by the Department that fire is a tool of conservation when used correctly. Where you fail to use fire in the mountain areas you get a build-up of old grass which merely lays those areas open to flash fires which can be caused by lightning or by other causes which in the end can cause more destruction and damange to the catchment areas than a well-planned series of management fires which are carried out by the Department with the specific purpose to prevent old growth building up. Flash fires in old growth can in many cases destroy a great deal of very useful vegetation. I do hope that it will be borne in mind by the hon. the Minister that fire must not be regarded as a danger or something which has to be avoided as an enemy by the conservationist in the mountain catchment areas.

I believe that the scientific evidence which we have in the report of the committee and the decisions which were taken by them were tentative and they were not absolutely and definitely accepted as the last word, for example, that timber was positively deleterious to water management and that grassland was the best. I think the hon. the Minister and the Secretary of Forestry will agree with me on that point. This was certainly a tentative decision. I think our biggest problems has been that we have been through a period of drought years where the findings of the committee could not be tested in practice. One of our problems is that we have a weight of evidence, but we have not had a succession of normal rainfall years in which the findings of the committee could be tested in practice.

Just ask East London.

Yes, I am sure East London would have prayed that they might have had the eight inches of rain if they could and that the other 24 inches could have been sent to somebody else.

I now want to come to the problem of the Department which is now actually managing catchments. In terms of the Bill the hon. the Minister and his Department are going to be charged with the actual management of an area which has been proclaimed. It seems to me that there are two ways in which it can be done. The one is by expropriation, as has been mentioned by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I hope the hon. the Minister will approach this one with caution, because I think we all know what a strain is already being placed on State Departments from the point of view of manpower. For the hon. the Minister and his Department to be landed with the administration and the day-to-day direction of vast areas of mountain catchment, might prove a considerable strain on the resources of his Department. There again by means of a compensation, which he is entitled to pay. he can enlist the aid of the landowner. My belief is that the hon. the Minister is going to have to rely on the private landowner to a very considerable extent to carry out the provisions of this Bill. I trust the hon. the Minister will go out of his way to enlist the sympathy of the local landowner to ensure that he will have the active backing and support of that person.

I hope that the timber producer is now not going to be regarded as the villain of the piece and I am reassured to a certain extent in that the hon. the Minister is the Minister of Forestry and that the Department of Forestry will administer the Act. The timber producer is producing something which is of vital importance to the economy of South Africa. The way in which the Bill is going to be administered is going to be to a certain extent against the interests of timber producers. I think we must accept that and I think that the hon. the Minister will agree that that is necessary. To a certain extent the interests of timber producers will be affected detrimentally, because they will be prevented from planting and drawing a profit from certain areas which will be defined by the hon. the Minister. I am quite certain that this is something which will be handled in a sympathetic manner. I think that the fact that the hon. the Minister has taken it upon himself as a Minister of Forestry rather than a Minister of Water Affairs will give us that guarantee. The last thing I would like to see is any kind of punitive approach, not necessarily action, towards timber producers for the fact that they have to plant up, or do plant up, catchment areas in the higher rainfall mountain areas.

I am very pleased to welcome this measure and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the farmers’ associations in my constituency, where areas have been proclaimed, are ready to give the hon. the Minister full support in administering this Bill. I must say that in the Rietvlei area there was a considerable difference of opinion. I am the person who had the backwash, because I had to go there and explain to them what the hon. the Minister intended when he proclaimed it as a catchment area. I am, however, very pleased to say that I can now go there and show them this Bill. I expect nothing in a bad sense from the farmers in that area.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to associate myself with the congratulations, and express my joy at the Bill which is before us to-day. In addition I want to refer to a few points which the hon. member or Mooi River put forward. He touched upon very important matters which are also relevant to my area. The first was the question of gum trees, actually saligna trees. In the Eastern Transvaal high rainfall areas, the escarpment areas, the planting of gum trees has assumed tremendous proportions. I do not think we should see this in the sense that the hon. the Minister and his Department came along with this Bill in order to prejudice existing investment to a large scale. We must accept the fact, and it is also an educational task, that several bodies are dependent on our water sources. Forestry is a particularly good investment. In proportion to other economic activities, forestry might even be more useful. We can make various comparisons in this connection, but I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mooi River said, i.e. that as soon as a certain industry becomes profitable, as in the Lowveld areas, in the vicinity of White River, Barberton and the Kaapsehoop areas, where thousands upon thousands of saligna trees are plated, the livestock farmer must make way. The people realize that they can make more money out of wood, and they then begin to plant trees in the wrong places. I think the hon. the Minister and officials of his Department travelled through certain of these areas this year, during a period when we had below-average rainfall. I do not think we should wait for what we call normal rainfall. A normal season in South Africa with a normal rainfall usually means too much or too little rain. That is the pattern in our country. The hon. the Minister probably observed how many plantations are white as snow because of the lack of rain this year. I want to say immediately that as a farmer I regard it as a blessing in disguise. People went along and plated trees in areas where the soil is not deep enough and where the rainfall is too low. As a result large portions of these plantations came to nothing. It is, after all, important that certain of our catchment areas be investigated very closely by the Department, and that a decision be taken about whether to intervene or not.

I am very glad of the provision in the Bill to the effect that people can be compensated. In the past this was not the case. In the Eastern Transvaal escarpment area this measure would be very valuable. However, a very precise investigation must be instituted, and I think that we must be very careful of inconsistencies. Where the two clash in certain respects one must not on the one hand champion the forestry industry and on the other hand champion water conservation. This is not always the case, because forestry is a very useful consumer of water and also, it goes without saying, a method of conserving the soil.

The question of fire, and the manner in which burning must take place, is also something to which I want to refer. The hon. member for Mooi River said that the Department would perhaps not be able to exercise control, and that other bodies would have to be approached. I want to say that in my experience the best-equipped organization for this purpose is the Department of Forestry. At times farmers own large areas, they go away on holiday, and there are times when they are not available. The Department of Forestry can accept the responsibility, since they usually have people on duty, and they are able to arrange matters in such a way that there is always someone who can keep a watch. I feel that if we say that fire prevention is everyone’s job, it is actually no-one’s job and responsibility. I therefore want to stress this approach, i.e. that the State should, in fact, accept responsibility. I think this is very important. I think that officials who accept responsibility in such cases do, in fact, make use of the means at their disposal to obtain cooperation. There is the question of committees, for which provision is being made in the Bill. But we find that our officials usually know the community where they must take action. If they need help they can definitely make use of that. But to leave it in the hands of loose committees would, in my opinion, not be very successful.

We now have two Acts that deal with more or less the same matter. In section 59 (2) of the Water Act (Act No. 54 of 1956) provision is made for catchment control areas, to which the member for Mooi River referred. I have campaigned for years for action to be taken in terms of that section of the Water Act. It was very clear to me that we could not achieve much. That section actually more specifically provides for the protection of actual downflow channels and the courses of rivers. Provision has nevertheless been made for a larger area to be proclamated. There may be a measure of overlapping, but on the other hand this Bill is of such a nature that it grants wide powers. It makes provision for fire control, committees and compensation, for which the other Act does not make provision.

I am not quite clear about the question of the cultivation of agricultural land in our mountain catchment area. I hope that if the Minister replies to this he will perhaps give us an indication of what is regarded as a mountain catchment area. Our people, who are imbued with soil and water conservation, talk constantly of “sponges”. What is a sponge? As far as I am concerned a sponge is any place where water falls. There is no place where water falls that ought not to be a sponge. To say that a marsh or a swampish area in the mountain is a sponge, is in my opinion not altogether correct. We must manage and control the land in such a way that the water that might fall at any place will be of the greatest possible use to the country’s population. In other words, in some cases we must be able to say that where there must be a downflow of water, this must take in such a way that it does not carry along unnecessary soil and silt. A certain portion of it will have to penetrate into the ground and feed the underground water supply and the vegetation. But the idea is now that we regard a limited area as a sponge area, and in this case as a mountain catchment area. I have in mind, for example, the area between Barberton and Swaziland, and the Makonja mountains in particular, those lovely mountains with heavy woodlands in parts. But there are large areas that are tremendously stony. It was customary in that and other areas in the Eastern Lowveld for sheep farmers to come down and burn the grass in March and April. Then that young grass is used by their sheep in the winter months. This practice has proved tremendously detrimental to us. Some of those areas are clearly mountainous. Others are simply undulating highlands. I should like to have some indication. I take it that it is the intention to protect the high rainfall area. As far as I am concerned the concept of a mountain catchment area is somewhat misleading. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to explain this.

In addition, I endorse the fact that the Bantu Trust areas are being included here. That was a big shortcoming in the past. I hope the departement will co-operate very nicely in the implementation of this legislation, so that we shall be able to take very strict action, particularly in the Bantu Trust areas. Unfortunately large parts of our high rainfall regions, which look to me like mountain catchment areas, are situated in Bantu Trust land. It has frequently been cast in our teeth that the Bantu do not have the slightest interest in the use of that land. I must say with all due respect that many of our Whites do not handle those catchment areas with the necessary respect either.

I want to content myself with this, and I just want to emphasize that in respect of the Eastern Transvaal excarpment, where a large amount of water annually flows down to the sea, we have a problem in connection with injudicious afforestation. There we also have the problems of unnecessary veld fires, particularly by our sheep farmers, but also by others. There are also Bantu areas where the veld is set alight, in season and out of season. With all these problems I hope that the hon. the Minister, who has come to the point of submitting legislation, will not hesitate to take action. I also hope that we as a people and as a Parliament will not hesitate to give the hon. the Minister money for purchasing land, where this is necessary, for the protection of these water sources, and our future, and their best possible consequent utilization.

After these few ideas, I still want to refer to the few clauses which the hon. member for South Coast touched upon here. In the first place I just want to refer briefly to clause 3. The hon. member said that he feels that the hon. the Minister should first intimate that he will issue a notice. In other words, that he first informs the people of what he intends to do. I am not persuaded to agree with that. If we begin to warn people, the State is in many cases looking for trouble, because our people are inclined to misuse the State. If they know that an area is going to be declared, practices frequently take place with the object of making money. That is why I am of the opinion that the hon. the Minister must think twice before warning people too early. It is, in many cases, the State’s duty to intervene very quickly.

Clause 5 deals with the question of exemption from taxes, which is welcomed. I do not think that there are bodies other than local authorities involved. Hon. members who have spoken about that may have more knowledge in that connection. I think that the hon. member for South Coast’s request in connection with the authorized officers mentioned in clause 11 was a reasonable one. The hon. member also feels that in connection with clauses 2 and 13 the Minister should, in both cases, retain the power and not transfer it to the Secretary. I personally have a great deal of confidence in our heads of departments, but I think the hon. the Minister can nevertheless keep it in mind. I have no further comments. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department once more for this exceptional Bill that is being placed before us. We shall owe the hon. the Minister a great debt of gratitude for this in the future.

One has the feeling that this House this afternoon is doing something that is constructive and really meaningful and that will benefit our people and our country for all time. I want to associate myself with what has been said by hon. members on both sides of this House in complimenting the hon. the Minister, the Secretary and his department on their work in bringing forward this Bill. I particularly want to join with the hon. member for Humansdorp in what he said about financial aid for people not only in connection with fire protection committees and fire protection plans, but also in connection with work done in replanting natural flora and the eradication of alien trees, shrubs or other vegetation in proclaimed areas.

I want, too, to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Nelspruit in what they said about the question of compensation. I shall come back later to further remarks made by the hon. member for Nelspruit.

We on this side of the House obviously welcome this measure. It does something which we have wanted done for many years. It covers a gap that has been left by other legislation, and goes further than the provisions of the Forest Act, 1968, and the Soil Conservation Act, which was passed last year. In fact it is very much in line with many of the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act. It is quite clear that in this country one of the greatest problems that we are going to face in the next two decades will be one of conservation of our large catchment areas and of our water generally, the protection of our environment and all allied matters. The Opposition has consistently pleaded for these things, along with many members of the Government. for many years. I think it is largely due to the efforts of members on this side of the House that there has been this reawakening of interest in conservation matters. The hon. the Minister by now must know that he is going to be hearing far more about conservation generally from members on this side of the House. We all look forward to a period of co-operation between him and his Government and the Opposition in these matters.

Obviously in the course of doing this there will be some criticisms levelled. As the hon. member for South Coast has said, we do have some criticisms of this measure as it stands. They are essentially constructive criticism and I want the hon. the Minister to accept that everything we say in these matters will be directed towards a more constructive approach.

I think it is quite clear that water is the major consideration that lies behind this Bill before the House, a matter in which we have to a large extent dragged our heels far too much. Water, as we all know, is the lifeblood of any nation. We in this country, with its expanding economy, its growing population and its very limited resources are going to find ourselves faced with trouble unless we gear ourselves to a really major effort. I know that the hon. the Minister’s department has made some estimates of the time which might be called our danger period. These estimates, however, vary. Some say that we shall be in trouble within 20 years unless we find new sources of water. I think the hon. the Minister and his department are being perhaps a little optimistic. We might run into trouble long before a period of 20 years has elapsed. And in viewing the whole question of conservation, there are some very obvious precepts that should be dealt with. The first one is that areas cannot be dealt with in isolation. It has always been a matter of some regret that the Soil Conservation Act, for instance, was not applied in the Bantu Trust areas. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Nelspruit, who said that it left a “groot leemte”. By the same yardstick it must be regretted that rural Coloured areas do not fall under the Soil Conservation Act. The Minister has not seen his way clear to having his department supervise mountain catchment areas in the Bantu Trust areas. Here too I am afraid that the Government is making a mistake. I believe that the Minister’s department, with its expertize, is the right agency to handle catchment areas everywhere, including those in the Bantu Trust areas. I do not think for one moment that it would be right to hand over the control of these catchment areas to the Minister of Bantu Administration.

At the very least a start has been made, however. Unlike the position regarding the Soil Conservation Act, the Bantu Trust areas have been brought under the scope of this Bill, even though, as I have said, the Minister has decided to delegate his powers. What we should get clear in our minds is that the catchment areas cannot be divorced from areas which benefit from them. This is a basic concept and here I think the hon. member for Nelspruit was absolutely correct when he pointed to the fact that many of our high rainfall areas, which make up our catchment areas, are in Bantu Trust land. Nor, for that matter, can one part of the country be divorced from another in matters such as the conservation of water, the protection of catchment areas or the protection of the environment as a whole.

Hon. members on this side of the House as well as members on that side are not unaware of the importance of centralized overall control. I know for instance that in South-West Africa there has been considerable debate from time to time about the necessity for centralized control being maintained over natural resources such as water and minerals. I am glad to see that some of our colleagues from South-West Africa are in the House. It is pleasing to see that there are people on that side of the House who agree with us. We hope that this Bill will be a forerunner of other more important things than those we are dealing with to-day. We hope that the Government will see this Bill in the perspective in which we see it, namely that it is not an end in itself, but that it is a useful and perhaps a necessary stepping stone to bigger things in the preservation of our natural resources. With measures such as the Soil Conservation Act, parts of the Water Act and the Forest Act, it could form the nucleus of a major move to co-ordinate conservation in South Africa, drawing on all the resources of the Government generally as well as on the resources of universities, scientific societies, industry and others.

I want to refer also to what the hon. the Minister has said about forming an interdepartmental advisory committee. He said that this would mean the involvement of at least three Departments, namely the two Departments that fall under his control, the Departments of Water Affairs and of Forestry, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. I think, however, that the hon. the Minister will have to go outside these three Departments if he wants to have overall collaboration between Government Departments. It is already clear, for instance, that he is going to have to collaborate with the Department of Bant Administration. I should like to tell him that he should perhaps speak to some of his other colleagues as well. Only last night I was shown pictorial evidence of how mountains in the Eastern Cape have been gashed— that is the only word one can use— in the construction of access roads to FM towers. As we know, these towers criss-cross the country. They are always built in high places. I must say that the evidence I saw last night was shocking. I think the hon. the Minister should have a word with his colleague, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, or whoever was responsible for the construction of these roads. He should be told that some of these roads are proving sources of potential erosion and danger to our countryside. For a comparatively modest expenditure, the builders of these roads could quite easily have regrassed the shoulders of the roads. Contouring could have been done and topsoil could have been added where necessary. They could also have undertaken grassing or the planting of trees, shrubs or other suitable vegetation to bind the soil. This does indicate that there should be some overall national approach to the question of conservation. There should be some real effort to insure that whatever we do to advance our country industrially or by way of communication, or in any other way, we should try to cause the minimum amount of damage to our environment.

In suggesting that there should be some central overall control, I want to draw the attention of the Minister to some apparent anomalies in the position as it obtains at present. These anomalies have been brought to light with the publication of this Bill. For instance, Sir, it seems difficult to believe this: that it is possible that certain areas of land that fell under the control of the Minister of Forestry in terms of the old Forest Act, which was repealed by the 1968 Act, could have been proclaimed by the Minister of Forestry as nature reserves or as protection forests for the conservation of water supplies and the prevention of sand drift or soil erosion. When the Soil Conservation Act of 1946 was passed, it provided that such areas would automatically fall under the scope of the Soil Conservation Act and under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. We all remember of course that the Ministry of Agriculture was divided for a while. Control over this matter went first to the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services and then reverted to the Minister of Agriculture. Now we have the position that land which is declared as a mountain catchment area and which might have fallen under the scope of the Soil Conservation Act and under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, now reverts back to the Minister of Forestry.

It seems completely undesirable that we should have this sort of tug-of-war between Departments, with the control over particular pieces of land moving from one Department to the other, first under the control of one Minister and then under the control of another and then another. It is obvious that this type of thing does not lend itself to good administration of these valuable lands.

The other matter that I want to put to the hon. the Minister—this is not a criticism of this Bill but I think it should be looked at in the light of this being a stepping stone to something bigger—is the position of fire-protection committees. These committees can be set up both in terms of this Bill and in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. There is a provision in this Bill that where a committee is set up in terms of this Bill, any committee or plan that might have existed under the Soil Conservation Act falls away. In other words, soil conservation committees formed under the Mountain Catchment Areas Bill take precedence. Both types of committees under these two measures are also governed by the provisions of the Forest Act. Sir, the anomaly is that we have two Departments doing basically the same type of work with this difference: that they can be working under completely different sets of regulations promulgated by the two Ministers, the one being the Minister of Forestry and the other the Minister of Agriculture. The constitutions of these committees can be different and even penalties for offences of the same type can be different. For instance, under the Soil Conservation Act person committing offences in respect of fire protection plans can be sentenced to a fine of up to R100 or six months’ imprisonment. This Bill, for what one may describe as precisely the same type of offence, prescribes penalties of up to R1,000 or two years, imprisonment. I think that some effort should be made in the future to equate one effort with another.

Sir, I think it only remains for me to say once more that I am sure that everybody in this country will welcome this measure. It is, at first reading, what one might call a tough measure in that it gives wide powers to the Minister and to people delegated by him. I think it was proved in the case of the original Soil Conservation Act that it was in fact rather too lenient. This militated against its being applied efficiently, hence the new Soil Conservation Act of last year. To that extent I think we on this side of the House wholeheartedly support the Minister in what he is doing. We repeat that we hope that this measure is going to lead to bigger and better things and we wish him luck in its application.

Sir, I have been following the hon. member for Kensington’s argument, and I am pleased to hear that he supports the Bill. Lending his support to this Bill is the first sensible and intelligent thing that hon. member has done in this House. I tried to follow his argument. I could not hear what he said very clearly, but I shall follow the advice of the Sunday Times and read his speech in Hansard.

The hon. member made the allegation that the conservation consciousness of the Government, and its endeavours to conserve water sources, are chiefly, if I heard him correctly, attributable to pressure from the Opposition side, and to the fact that they advocated the conservation of catchment areas here. Sir, the hon. member is far off the mark, because if I remember correctly this matter has already been advocated by organized agriculture for several years. I really want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department very warmly for having come to light with this legislation. This is proof to us of the seriousness with which the Government, and particularly the Minister, is treating the water position in our country. But what is most important, in my opinion, is the fact that the Government has now decided to take measures, and is also taking powers in this Bill to determine purposefully for what purposes water can, in fact, be used. This adds up to the fact that afforestation can be controlled, inter alia, because of the result of the fact that the planting of forests is detrimental to the downflow of those rivers. We have various rivers rising in my constituency, inter alia, the Blyde River, the Treur River, the Sabie River, the Crocodile River, the Olifants River and the Ohrigstad River. The areas where these rivers rise are, in addition, situated in the Sabie-Graskop-Lydenburg complex where, incidentally, there are the largest forests in the world planted by human hand. In this constituency in particular we find that the farmers who must make use of this water are becoming concerned at the decreasing downflow of the rivers, at this stage not necessarily, I would say, only as a result of afforestation, but also as a result of the lower rainfall in recent years. That is why concern has also been expressed by all the irrigation boards in this area about the planting of forests in these catchment areas. One may now argue about whether it is necessary for the State to expropriate such land, but as we all know, this would entail tremendous financial implications which we most certainly cannot afford.

That is why I regard this legislation as very far-sighted, because it enables us to carry out long-term planning. In other words, we can at an early stage restrict and check an evil which could become a greater evil in the future, i.e. the increasing afforestation in that whole catchment area, so that there will be no additional detrimental influences at a later stage. This gives us the powers to be able to carry out that broad, long-term planning.

I also welcome the establishment of these advisory committees. The powers of the old fire protection committees were actually too limited, or, at any rate, let me put it this way—their area of jurisdiction was too localized. Neither were they able to carry out planning in respect of water conservation for people further down along those rivers. I want to explain this point of mine in this way. One finds certain rivers where the downflow is lost, and where that water is perhaps not made such good use of. But one finds other rivers— and here I am thinking particularly of the Blyde River—where there is a water shortage in the lower reaches of that river. Consequently steps must be taken and a choice made about what should now be relinquished, afforestation for the sake of the water or something else. On this basis priority is now being given to what that water is being used for. I may mention that with the construction of the new dam in the Blyde River, an approximately R9 million project, there is the largest afforestation in our country in the catchment area of that river. It goes without saying that when one builds an expensive dam here of R9 million, which must provide for the needs of such a tremendously rapidly expanding industrial complex such as Phalaborwa, for example. one cannot afford to use that water for afforestation in the catchment area.

I listened to the argument of the hon. member for South Coast, and I must say that I endorse the fact that we are going to make some of these State lands in the catchment areas of our rivers available for public recreation. Some of our land is, in fact, already being used for this purpose. I also want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Forestry for giving certain areas in the Eastern Transvaal, in the vicinity of Sabie, to the Transvaal Council for Public Resorts for further development for the purposes of public recreation.

Order! The hon. member must come a little closer to the Bill.

Here along the upper reaches, at Mount Anderson, there are also further areas that must be declared catchment areas, sponge areas. I also want to submit for consideration that those areas could possibly be utilized for purposes of public recreation. As far as the combining of the three existing Acts is concerned, we can only, in all respects, welcome the fact that there will be greater co-ordination and better planning in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Lydenburg should have started his speech by kicking a political football about while this afternoon we are discussing one of the most constructive measures we have had in this House for a long time. I do hope that he will read the hon. member for Kensington’s speech, because it was certainly a very good speech.

In the few minutes at my disposal I am very pleased to be able to associate myself in a few brief words with what other hon. members have said about this Bill. I believe that only good can come from a measure of this nature. One aspect of this Bill, which is of tremendous significance is to be found in clause 3, subsection (1) which says that the Minister may “declare a direction to be applicable with reference to such land, relating to (a) the conservation, use, management and control of such land”. This is important, because I think this is one of the first pieces of legislation we have had where we actually give the power to a Minister to decide how land shall be used in South Africa. I sincerely believe that much of the trouble of soil erosion we have in South Africa and much of the destruction of our land emanates from the fact that land usage in South Africa has been haphazard and not properly controlled. This is one of the first measures we have where we will have proper control over the use of our national heritage, our soil. I think this is of very great importance indeed. It is a very necessary forward step we have taken, and although it is only a very small step forward I believe that it may well be the forerunner to legislation with a similar spirit, but perhaps with other objectives. This, I believe, will also be necessary in guiding our agriculture practices in South Africa in the future. I believe that when the principles of this Bill have been accented and have proved to work well— which I have no doubt they will—we might well contemplate other legislation of a similar kind. We may have a Bill to protect our coastal areas and it can be called the Coastal Areas Protection Bill. Such a Bill can come forward in the same spirit as this Bill comes forward. Many beautiful areas alongside our coast are being desecreted to-day and I believe that they are worthy of protection. Another very important aspect calling for attention, is the protection of our river valleys. In the same way that we are giving the hon. the Minister power to look after mountain catchment areas, to enable him to take care of the water that is available to us and to see that it is not misused and that it does not flow down unnecessarily to the sea, in the same way I believe our river valleys in the high rainfall areas and in many other areas, such as in the Karoo and the South-Western districts, should be protected, right from the mountain tops down to where they flow into the sea. These river valleys are in serious need of protection and I believe that legislation contemplating the same objective as this particular piece of legislation, could be brought to this House with that objective.

Finally, also bearing in mind the principles we are accepting in this Bill, the question of land usage comes forward very prominently. I believe that in the course of time it will be in the interests of this country, and not only in the interests of farmers, but of every single citizen of South Africa, if we contemplate legislation that controls in a democratic way the way we as a nation make use of the land which we have in South Africa. I believe that at present, we are not making the best use of our land, that we are not protecting it in the best way we can and for these reasons, above all else, I welcome this Bill because I believe the principle enshrined in it is astepping stone to further legislation that will save our country for those who come after us.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Water Year, 1970, could not have been fundamentally better supported than by means of what is being done by such a Bill I do not want to dish out cheap compliments, but I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that this measure not only attests to courage, but also to a very healthy and judicious projection into the future as far as the use of water is concerned.

I just want to out a question right away. Have we not, in the past, been confusing our concepts in connection with water conservation slightly? I think that in the past we have considered that the damming up of water essentially included conservation as one of its main functions. I would say that planning, conservation and utilization are inseparable triplets. This Bill has conservation, planning and utilization as an essential characteristic. Thus far we have entrusted the task of the damming up of water, which we have regarded as a synonym for conservation, to our irrigation engineers. I think that the general population considers that if a dam is built and water is dammed up, this is the alpha and omega of water conservation. They also think that if a dense settlement is laid out below such a dam. this is the alpha and omega of the most productive utilization of that water I wonder whether we have not perhaps already spent too much capital on projects that are not based on the correct points of departure, i.e. planning, conservation and utilization. I see this measure as one of the most important pieces of legislation dealing with the planning of water on a national scale. I think that we should now deviate a little from emphasizing the role of the irrigation engineer alone, and direct our gaze at the individual concerned with planning. This measure shifts the emphasis from the irrigation engineer, the dam builder, to the water planner. This measure bears the stamp of planning. If we are not going to plan what we are going to do with our water, how we are going to concentrate our water, how we are going to distribute it and how we are going to utilize it, we shall eventually be confronted with two big problems. The first is that we shall not have sufficient water for irrigation, and we shall have to produce food. Particularly in a country such as South Africa, where we have such intermittent rainfall, our food production will have to be supported by that stability which is brought about by water. This Bill, which now makes it possible to identify catchment areas, and grants the Minister the authorization to proclaim certain mountain catchment areas as exclusive sponge, areas for the catchment of water, will enable us to combat this one problem in the future, i.e. the problem of obtaining sufficient water for food production. The other question is that of sufficient water for industrial purposes. In the year 2,000 the Vaal River can supply us with about 3 million gallons of water a year.

I think the hon. member should confine himself more strictly to the contents of this Bill. He must not be so vague.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand what you mean, and I appreciate it. If South Africa had been a country that was suitable as a whole, with respect to its surface area, for agricultural purposes, on the basis of its natural rainfall alone, such a Bill would not have been necessary. But because South Africa is what it is. this Bill is so important. The basis of this Bill is water conservation; this is the whole message I read in it Everything in the Bill is secondary to the one great message of water conservation. Soil conservation and the use of land are all secondary to this central idea in the Bill, that of water conservation. That is why I am placing a little emphasis on the water conservation aspect which is written into this Bill, because that, in my opinion, is the crux of the matter.

I want to conclude by saying that with such a Bill South Africa is much better equipped to establish a large water plan, where every drop of water, whether it comes from a mountain catchment area or from the bare-trodden plains of the country, must be seen as a small portion of a complex. That complex, whether it be in the Northern Transvaal, in the Drakensberg or in the Eastern Free State, or wherever, must again be seen as a part of a large national complex. For the first time we are obtaining a Bill that will enable us to plan South Africa’s water on a complex basis, organizing from that a large national complex of planning for the application, conservation and saving of our water in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I find myself in total accord this afternoon with the hon. member for Carletonville. I want to say that I am sure that he has put his finger on it when he says that the primary object of the legislation before the House this afternoon is the conservation of water. The hon. the Minister made this point three or four times in his introductory speech. I want to associate myself with those other members in this House on both sides who have welcomed this Bill, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is fitting that he should introduce a Bill of this nature in this year of 1970, which has been declared Water Year in South Africa. As has been said by my friend from Carletonville, this is the most important piece of legislation dealing with the conservation of water, that we have ever had in this Parliament. I wish the hon. the Minister luck. I hope he will be able to carry out what I read as the intention of this Bill. When I first read through this Bill, two thoughts entered my mind regarding clause 2. The first one was, on whose recommendation will the Minister declare an area a mountain catchment area? He answered that question in his Second-Reading speech when he intimated that he was going to establish an interdepartmental committee which would go into this whole question.

The other question which exercised my mind was, what of those persons who do not wish to be included or who feel that they have a case to make that they should not be included in the area which is to be defined? I see that the hon. Whip on the other side is the same as the other hon. members I referred to, yesterday. My hon. friend, the member for South Coast, has suggested to the hon. the Minister that some notice should be given to landowners that it is the intention to declare their area a mountain catchment area. The hon. member for Nelspruit raised a very valid point on this hole question when he said that this has had the effect in the past of acting as a warning to people that it is the intention of the Government to take over certain areas and that certain malpractices have developed out of this and that people have taken the opportunity of, in some cases, planting trees and sugar cane and developing arable land in order only to get compensation. This is the point which was foreseen by the hon. member for South Coast when he said that it was not necessary for the hon. the Minister to go to extreme lengths in this matter. Surely, one month’s notice or some opportunity for the individual landownners should be given during which they can make a case to the hon. the Minister to say that they agree that the area as a whole should be declared a catchment area, but that his particular piece of land should be left out. I commend this again to the attention of the hon. the Minister whilst accepting the point made by the hon. member for Nelspruit and would suggest that the hon. the Minister does investigate this question at a later stage.

In my constituency, near Richmond in Natal, we have an extremely beautiful area and a particularly beautiful valley which is known to-day as the Byrne Valley, This Byrne Valle derives its name from the settlers who came to Natal in 1849, the so-called Byrne Settlers, who are the equivalent of the 1820 Settlers of the Cape Province. In the valley where they settled and its sister valley, are the catchment areas, the sponges and the sources of the Illovo and the Serpentine Rivers. For over a 100 years people have farmed this area successfully and have flourished and the valleys have been beautiful. But I am sorry to say in the last few years these alleys have been dying—they have been strangled by the disappearance of the rich water resources which previously were there in abundance. I visited that area shortly before coming down for this session. I visited a farm which had been in a particular family for many generations. Twenty years ago on that farm there were three dams, the largest of which held one and a half million gallons of water. The other two were a bit smaller. They irrigated lands. The house had a beautiful garden. They had all the water they wanted. There were fish in the dams. They were able to swim in the dams. A dairy herd was established with a milk quota and there were also orchards under irrigation. But now when I visited that farm a few months ago at the end of the summer, I found that in the largest dam there was barely 300,000 gallons of water. It was no more than a muddy pool. The two smaller dams had nothing in them. There were no lands under irrigation. The garden was obviously still well-tended, but the signs were there that it had once been a beautiful garden. But there was nothing there now. There was a shortage of water even for domestic purposes. There was no more fishing and no more swimming in these dams. The farmer himself was faced with the loss of his milk quota because his production of milk was down by 30 per cent. The orchards of course had long since ceased to produce. This is the change in the last ten years. It is not an isolated case. It ‘ is also not on account of drought. There have been droughts which could have been a contributory factor. The main reason is the drying-up of the water resources of that particular farm. Why have these resources dried up? They have dried up because trees, in particular saligna gum, have been planted right up to the fences on three sides of that farm. It no longer has those water resources. This is not an isolated case. The hon. the Minister and his department know that it is not an isolated case. The commissioners who the hon. the Minister appointed to investigate the question of forestry and its effect on water went into that area. They interviewed this particular farmer as well as others who have made out a case for the control of that particular catchment area. The difficulty stems from the planting of trees in that area, expecially the planting of exotic trees. Included in this is the gum tree.

These plantations have dried up the streams, not only on neighbouring properties, but on their own. If ever we had any proof of this, it can be found in the Richmond area. These farms were bought up by large timber concerns because of the water which existed on the farms, perennial and permanent water. Today those self same farms are dependent on bore-holes for domestic water for farm managers and labourers who are employed on these plantations. This is something which was unheard of in the Richmond district until a few years ago, namely that anybody should have to drill a bore-hole for water. Those self same timber farms to-day are dependent on bore-holes.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill and leave the valley alone for a moment.

Mr. Speaker, I will abide by your ruling. The point I am getting to is that this particular farmer and the other farmers have been faced with a bleak future. They faced the future without any hope until to-day when we have this Bill introduced. This Bill is going to change the attitude and the outlook of those people, not only in my area but in other areas throughout the country. [Interjections.] I notice that there are members on the other side who think of this as a joke. It is obvious that they must either live in a desert or else they must be very kindly blessed with much rainfall and therefore do not have to worry about the conservation of water. I think it must be nice to be able to represent such a constituency.

This Bill provides salvation for those farmers only if the hon. the Minister has the courage to carry out what I read as the provisions of this Bill. My hon. friend for Mooi River has pointed out to him that he must grasp the nettle and take action. The hon. the Minister mentioned that it may be necessary to limit the planting of trees. I accept that. I am very glad to hear it. What, however, disturbed me was the statement that followed where the hon. the Minister said that timber growers who have planted trees should be allowed to bring these trees to maturity and to exploit them but then be prohibited from reestablishing them. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that by the time those treees have reached maturity and have been exploited, it might be too late. It might be too late then to try and re-establish the water resources in that area.

Sir, unfortunately for too long we in South Africa have been closing our eyes to this very problem which the hon. the Minister is tack ling in terms of this Bill. For too long all South Africans have done too little in this matter, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out. Sir, I have done a little research into this and I find that the first warnings were issued 55 years ago. I want to quote from a report by a South African forestry official in 1915, 55 years ago—

Sir, that was said in 1915 but I find that nothing further was done about this report until the 1930s when we had an amendment introduced to the Forestry Act prohibiting the planting of trees within 66 ft. of the banks of streams and of sponge areas. But even that was never enforced. Sir, I am not blaming this particular Minister or his Department; I am blaming the whole of South Africa because we are all guilty. Nobody has done anything.

What, then, is the good of mentioning that in this House?

If that hon. member had a bit of brain he might understand what I was talking about. We found in the 1930s that there was such an outcry about this question—35 years ago—about the effect of the planting of trees on water that the British Empire Conference, which was held in South Africa in 1935, endorsed a report on this matter of the effect of the planting of trees on water, a report which was prepared by our Department of Agriculture and Forestry at that time. That report concluded with this suggestion—

But even then, Sir, nothing was done until this hon. Minister in 1967 appointed a commission to investigate the effect of afforestation on water. The report of that commission, which was received in 1968, concludes—

I hope the hon. the Minister takes note of this—

And now, Sir, after all that and many representations made from this side of the House and from the other side of the House, we now have this Bill. Herein could lie our salvation, provided, as I have said before, the hon. the Minister has the courage and gets from the Cabinet the resources necessary to carry out the provisions of this Bill. Because, make no mistake, Sir, unless something is done, heavy users of water—and by that I mean the urban areas and industrialists and not only the agriculturists—are going to be in dire straits and suffer the penalties for our dereliction in years gone by, because the water which is stolen by these trees could certainly swell the water supplies of all the other areas. Sir, no longer must the interests of large concerns interested only in financial profits from the planting of timber for the gold mines …

Order! The hon. member is repeating his own arguments.

With respect, Sir, may I make the point that I feel that no longer must the interests of large financial institutions which are planting trees primarily for the gold mines, for the building industry, for pulp and other timber uses …

Order! The hon. member has made that point already.

With respect, Sir, I do not remember saying that. However, I will accept your ruling.

Finish up so that we can carry on with the eggs.

Sir, it appears that the hon. the Deputy Minister is very keen to get into the fight. He will know all about it when we get there. Sir, it is imperative that the afforestation with exotic trees of our mountain catchment areas should cease forthwith. The power is now being given to the hon. the Minister to enforce this. But, Sir, he also obtains the power to remove trees already planted in those areas. I hope that I am not attaching too much importance to the remark which he made in his Second Reading speech when he said that he felt that he should leave these trees to reach maturity. I hope that he will consider this question and see whether these trees should not be removed now before they cause too much damage.

Sir, as I said when I started, my farmers in Richmond will welcome this measure. I am very, very pleased that it has been introduced, and I want to say that they have their womenfolk behind them in this.

In conclusion, Sir, I think it is fitting that I should quote here a letter that was written by the Richmond Women’s League and Institute to the Richmond Soil Conservation Committee in June of this year—

The letter concludes—

Sir, with that I commend the hon. the Minister’s action in bringing this Bill before the House. We support it.

I want to thank hon. members who spoke on both sides of the House for their contributions. I think that very good, constructive contributions were made here by hon. members this afternoon. I also have great appreciation for the fact that the principles contained in the Bill were welcomed—I may almost say welcomed enthusiastically—by hon. members on both sides of the House. I also found it very interesting to see here this afternoon how many fathers this Bill has. It seems to me that the whole of South Africa wants to claim responsibility for the Bill, and I think that this is a good thing, because it is better for a child to have many fathers than to have no father at all. I therefore welcome the good spirit in which this Bill was discussed here this afternoon.

Hon. members remarked from various sides that this is probably one of the most important measures that has come before the House in a long time. I do not want to draw comparisons, but I just want to say that I myself regard it as an important measure. I even think that we have reached a stage where it has become essential for us to gain control over the mountain catchment areas which are now, and in the future, going to play a very important part as far as our water supplies are concerned. I want to say immediately that suggestions were put forward here, particularly by the hon. member for South Coast, in connection with possible amendments.

†The hon. member for South Coast suggested that we might amend the Bill, but may I say that I do not think there is enough time to draft these amendments by to-morrow. I think the best way of amending the Bill, should there be any amendments, would be to do it in the Other Place. But I agree that the hon. member for South Coast has made some valuable suggestions. I will not say that I will accept all his ideas, but I think he has made excellent suggestions in regard to amendments, especially regarding the pre-notification before declaration. I think the hon. member has a point there. But he will remember that this principle was discussed when the Water Act was under discussion, and that at the time there were arguments against and arguments in favour, of notification before declaration. Now in the case of the Water Act it is the wise view to say that there should not be pre-notification, but in the case of this Bill I think it might work the other way round and I will consider it.

The hon. member also referred to clause 2 and he wanted me to take complete control by giving the Minister the opprotunity of reviewing any declaration before it comes into effect. I must say I have full confidence in my department but I do not think there will be any problem in meeting the hon. member.

*Hon. members brought forward various points of view. The most important of these was that of proper control by means of proper management. I think we will agree that the essence of the legislation is that, since we now have central control by means of the legislation and since we have tried to have the mountain catchment areas of South Africa controlled by various departments, not because we have drawn up legislation to grant various powers to the various departments, but because it has developed in this way historically, it has now become necessary for some central authority to have all the say over the mountain catchment areas on behalf of all the interested parties. That is why, after long deliberation, it was decided that the sinsible attitude would be to have this central control in the hands of the Department of Forestry, because that department is equipped to exercise it. It has the machinery and is in the position that it could easily undertake this task without many additional officials or the creation of much additional machinery. The Department of Forestry would therefore be the sensible choice. But I may also say that in the discussions the other departments were only too willing to co-operate with the Department of Forestry, and to leave this function to it.

In the course of the discussions, reference was also made to the application of the Act in the Bantu homelands. We must understand that the administration in the Bantu homelands is a responsible one. I also want to tell hon. members that before this legislation was drawn up there were very thorough negotiations with that department. This special committee which is to be appointed will have the task of laying down the guide-lines. These guide-lines will then be applied when the catchment areas are declared. These guidelines and their basic principles will also be applicable to the Bantu homelands. Now that I know in what spirit the matter is viewed from all sides, I have every confidence that that department will also act with the same enthusiasm that prompted us to put forward this legislation. Let us now give this legislation a chance to work, and then we can discuss the matter again. I believe that it will operate smoothly.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the very important catchment area in the heart of our country which nevertheless does not belong to our country. He was referring to Lesotho, from which a very large portion of South Africa’s water is derived. Concern was expressed, not only about the fact that the catchment areas in Lesotho are not protected, but also about the fact that the run-off from Lesotho can cause us very serious problems in South Africa itself. Hon. members must understand that a large portion of the water of the Orange River comes from Lesotho, and this water carries a great deal of silt; measured in terms of the solid weight of the silt content, the water coming from Lesotho carries a silt percentage of 3.5 per cent. That is a very large quantity. I made the calculation last year, and at the time I told the House of the volume of silt from Lesotho that we in South Africa were going to be saddled with. I just want to tell hon. members that this is one of the fields where two countries can co-operate. It is one of the fields in, which it can be profitable to have proper mutual assistance, mutual technical advice and a mutual spirit of goodwill. I believe that we, through the departments concerned with this, will lay the basis and clear the way for a sound agreement and for intelligent action that will be of assistance to both these countries in the future. I believe that we are doing this, and that is why I have every confidence that this will be the outcome of our discussions, i.e. control with our advice, and perhaps with further assistance which will be in the interests of both countries. I therefore share the concern of hon. members because we are so dependent upon what happens in that country, which is a good neighbour of ours. The action taken in that country can have an effect on South Africa.

In the discussions that took place in this House, reference was also made to the good work done by a commission which investigated the mountain catchment areas. This commission was under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Forestry. A remark was also made here to the effect that this commission, with the valuable work it has done, has made it possible for this legislation to be placed on the Statute Book to-day. I want to associate myself with the hon. member who made these kind remarks, and I want to tell the hon. members that this matter will be discussed again here in future. The information that was obtained is very valuable, and an excellent report was published. We must understand that the disciplines we are dealing with, i.e. the disciplines of hydrology, the study of the entire water cycle from the moment the water rises until it is carried away, is a young discipline that is on the threshhold of the development of that specific science. We have already gathered a great deal of knowledge in that connection, and on the basis that has already been laid down I believe that, with additional work and investigations we shall be able to go further and improve, so that we may thereby increase our knowledge in the process so that we may know how to apply and improve our own actions. We must try, in the future, to improve on what we are now doing. Hon. members also referred to the real problem that exists. i.e. that trees have already been planted in some of these catchment areas which we must try to put to the best us as soon as possible. These trees have been planted in the last year or two. I do not think the House should expect me, while I am delivering a Second Reading speech, to say precisely what I am going to do. I think the House must be satisfied if I say that we are not placing this measure on the Statute Book as a toy or with the intention of not implementing it. We intend to implement it. Some hon. members also said that we must be very careful not to make a law that will create the impression among the people affected by it, that we want to clamp down on them from the top and want to take harsh action against them. We want to take them along with us in the process, because then we will get much further. It is not going to be So easy to implement the measure. We realize this. It is also going to cost money to implement it, but we are going to do it in a spirit of co-operation, and in such a way that we shall take everybody along with us. However, from what I have said it must not be inferred that we shall be afraid to take action. We cannot do that, otherwise we should not have made this law.

Hon. members also mentioned that there were timber interests which had to be protected. I think the hon. member for Mooi River said this. Of course, there are forest interests that are just as important as any other interest. I think, however, that the key word is the “balance” of interests. As long as we maintain the balance of interests we need not fear that this measure will be implemented in such a way as to be in conflict with the interests of South Africa or its people. Although this does not fit in with what I have just said, I want to tell the House at once that the Department of Forestry and I myself are in fact concerned about the position that we will have to give and take in the future. There are places where trees are standing that should not be standing there and where the water must be conserved, but there are also certain parts of South Africa that must be set aside for forestry. We must after all, have timber. This will mean however, that we will all have to co-operate and that we must lay down the demarcation and plan according to which we are going to develop. We are living in a country to give and take, where we have great needs and not many resources. In South Africa one of the great needs with few resources is the need for timber. I therefore want to give hon. members the assurance that we shall also have to do this in such a way that we do not deprive anyone of what is their due, and that we maintain the balance of development. We are going to implement this measure, and we shall not hesitate to take action against interests which are, in our opinion, in conflict with the interests of the country. We shall, however, try to take everyone we have to deal with, along with us in this process.

The hon. member for Nelspruit spoke of the possible disruption or non-disruption of investments. What the hon. member said is, of course, correct. We must remember that hundreds of millions of rands are invested in the industry itself, as well as in allied industries. We must, of course, take this into consideration as well. It is, therefore, not so easy just to take away. There is a great deal of money invested in the development of the forestry industry, and this industry is becoming one of the major industries in South Africa. There are few people who realize that the investment in this industry totals hundreds of millions of rands. It is becoming one of the largest industries in the country.

The hon. member also asked what a mountain catchment area actually is, in plain language a mountain catchment area is a catchment area above an agricultural zone. By this I mean that those high parts of the mountains which are not obviously agricultural areas and which are not easily accessible can be regarded as mountain catchment areas. There are many such inaccessible mountain regions here in the Western Province, and also in the Transvaal and in Natal. They are also areas with an obvious asset priority, where it will be easier to delimit the area for water conservation than to develop it at great expense as an agricultural area. In other words, our highest peaks. We shall encounter quite a number of problems when we have to formulate precisely what I have outlined here. It is not going to be so easy to implement pricesly what I have outlined here. It is not going to be so easy to implement it in practice, but we are going to try. I want to tell hon. members broadly that it is those areas with a high rainfall that must obviously be set aside for water conservation, such as the slopes of the Drakensberg, the high parts of the Drakensberg where one could farm if one wanted to take all the trouble of getting there, but where it would obviously not be sensible to try farming, because South Africa’s water must be kept there.

What we call the high berg.

Yes, the high berg. In other words, it is difficult to give hon. members a formula now which defines the matter more closely. But I think the House understands what I mean. Those parts that are fairly in accessible, the high-lying, high-rainfall areas, are the areas we must preserve for water runoff.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to financial support that ought to be given to persons who are working in such a mountain catchment area and are not included in terms of our formula. The hon. member’s idea is that consideration should also be given to extending the financial support to cover a wider field than is apparent from the Bill itself. I may tell him that we shall be making additional provision by way of regulation for related matters. We have now submitted the Bill, and it is going to be followed by regulations stipulating precisely whom will be compensated. what they will be compensated for. and what the compensation will be. This will, therefore, be properly borne in mind. The idea is not to deprive anyone of what is due to him and not to prejudice people without granting proper compensation.

The Bill was also referred to as a forerunner of greater co-operation between departments and bodies. I think the hon. member for Kensington referred to that. I want to tell hon. members that there is already a very great measure of co-operation between various departments and bodies in this connection. But I want to agree with the broad principle. I think we have reached a stage where everyone has become so aware of the necessity of co-operation in this field that I can, in fact, foresee that, in the days ahead, there will also be greater co-operation between departments —although this is already sound at present— as well as between departments and other bodies. I am, for example, thinking of organized agriculture, which is directly concerned in this. I am thinking, for example, of industries, which will also have to make sacrifices. I hope there will be co-operation on their part as well. But there is also the co-operation of scientific bodies, such as our universities and various other scientific bodies that can make a contribution. I therefore want to agree with that and say that I think that we have also reached the eve of development in this field as well, and that we are going to witness and expect greater co-operation in the future.

Mr. Speaker. I think that I have replied to most of the ideas expressed by hon. members on both sides of the House. I want to thank them very warmly for the fine spirit in which this discussion was conducted. I also want to thank them very warmly for the good suggestions that came forward. I also hope that when we do, in fact, begin to implement this legis1ation, and there are people in the various provinces who object because their personal interests are affected, and the Act is not popular, members on both sides of the House will also support the Minister for having done what we have praised so highly here this afternoon. The day will come when we shall also be criticized for our actions, when these actions affect the interests of others. I hope that I shall then also have the unanimous support of this House, as we now have in the discussion of this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Before requesting the Chairman to take the Chair, I regret to inform the hon. member for Newton Park that I cannot call upon him to move the notice of instruction standing in his name. I have considered the implications of the proposed instruction and find that it is destructive of the principle of the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I think that in the course of the Second-Reading debate it was made very clear that what this side of the House would like to have seen, was that the hon. the Minister would only make these regulations after proper consultation had taken place with the committee for which provision is being made in paragraph (c). The only alternative at present, is to tell the hon. the Minister that this committee will consist of members of the Egg Control Board and, in the second instance, that this committee will not only assist him in the issuing of the permits, but also in any other matter relating to the production of eggs. We are not only dealing here with a question of permits. I think the trade should also be examined from time to time, when they have to give decisions in order to curb the production of eggs or to relax the control over the production of eggs. I do not think this clause is quite clear in this regard. Accordingly I should like to move as an amendment—

In this clause the hon. the Minister has a fantastic power. His powers are tremendously wide. He is completely shouldering the task of organizing and regulating the egg trade. The hon. the Minister is even going so far as to provide that if a person wants to undertake expansion and acquire more hens than he had on a specified date, i.e. 28th February, 1970, he has to go to the Minister in order to obtain a permit for that purpose. The question of the control over the production of eggs is not a controversial matter as far as we are concerned. We have made this very clear to the hon. the Minister. We furnished him with the reasons why we thought it would be a good thing to control the production of eggs in South Africa. No argument can erase that fact. But it is also very clear that the hon. the Minister, when he is going to exercise the powers in terms of this clause, is going to tread on the corns of a large number of producers, i.e. those people who are going to be affected because of his activities. The only alternative left to us on this side is to urge the hon. the Minister as far as possible to be as cautious as possible in exercising these powers. The hon. member for Durban (North) may also move his amendment, and if it is at all possible, we should be afforded an opportunity of seeing and discussing those regulations from time to time. We cannot allow ourselves to be governed entirely by way of regulations. Clause 2 is unavoidable and irrefutable. The principle contained in this clause, is that we are now going to be governed by way of regulation and nothing else. Subsequent to that nobody has a chance, except by way of an appeal, allowed in terms of this clause, to the hon. the Minister. However, this will be an appeal subsequent to his having determined on what basis the permits were to be issued and subsequent to his having laid down the regulations. If a person were then to consider himself aggrieved, he would then have to approach that hon. Minister again in order to ask him whether he could not alter his decision. Surely, this is unprecedented! In this way the hon. the Minister is both judge and Minister, the man who acts in this case. The hon. the Minister must appreciate that we on this side cannot support that attitude. We have every sympathy in the world with the problem with which he is struggling, and there is no doubt that the hon. the Minister is going to struggle with this problem. This clause constitutes, in actual fact, the whole manner in which he is going to act in order to restrict the production of eggs in South Africa. My attitude is that if the hon. the Minister does in any way see his way clear to improving this clause, he should accept my amendment, and I am in fact asking him to be kind enough to do so.

Merely in order to save time, I want to tell the hon. member that we cannot accept his amendment, i.e. the new clause to follow clause 1. We accept his amendment in regard to line 40; therefore, we need not spend any time on discussing it. I move the following amendment to clause 2 as printed in my name—

Let me say at once that we, on this side of the House, accept the amendment of the hon. the Minister. I may say that it is to insert the words “specified in the regulations”, but it certainly has not clarified the matter if the clause is to remain as it is at the moment. We shall deal with that at a later stage. I rise at this stage to move the amendment that stands in my name on the Order Paper on pages 310 and 311 as follows—

1. (8) Any regulation made in terms of the powers conferred by paragraph (g) or (j) of subsection (1) shall be laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament within fourteen days after promulgation thereof if Parliament is then in ordinary session, or if Parliament is not then in ordinary session, within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session, and shall remain on the said Tables for at least twenty-eight consecutive days, and if Parliament is prorogued before the necessary twenty-eight days have elapsed, such regulation shall again be laid on the said Tables as aforesaid within fourteen days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.
2. (9)
   1. (a) If such regulation is not approved in both Houses of Parliament by resolution passed in the same session (being a session during which such regulation has been laid on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament in terms of subsection (8)) such regulation shall cease to be of force and effect—
      1. (i) as from the date of any resolution of either House of Parliament disapproving thereof to the extent of such disapproval; or
      2. (ii) as from the date on which Parliament is prorogued at the end of any session during which such regulation has been on the Tables of both Houses of Parliament for at least twenty eight consecutive days,

      whichever is the earlier date.

   2. (b) The provisions of paragraph (a) are without prejudice to the validity of anything done in terms of such regulation or any provision thereof up to the date upon which it so ceased to be of force or effect, or to any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred as at the said date under and by virtue of such regulation or such provision thereof.

There are in fact three separate amendments. The second amendment the hon. the Minister will accept. This amendment provides that, instead of having the Gazette with the regulations laid on the Table within six weeks, they should be laid on the Table within two weeks as is normal and provided for in the Interpretation Act. During the Second Reading the hon. the Minister indicated that he would accept it.

Now, Sir, the first amendment which is to omit all the words after “regulation” in line 33 on page 5 up to and including the word “Act” in line 36, means that this will now read as follows: That he can make regulations providing that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of any regulation, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to such fine not exceeding R5,000, etc. In other words, we will have the normal situation that regulations will be promulgated. They are the law; they are promulgated and published; you know what the law is and you know how you should conduct yourself. You know that if you do something prohibited by those regulations then you commit an offence. As this reads at the moment it says that not only will you commit an offence if you contravene one of the regulations but that you will also commit an offence—this is unbelievable, Sir, but nevertheless it is here—if you commit any act or if you commit an act of omission which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of this Act. Sir, I must say that as it stands here in this clause it is quite unbelievable; it is completely without any precedent whatsoever. How can you provide that a person commits an offence, in respect of which there is a penalty of a fine of R5,000 or imprisonment for one year, or both, if the person does not know that he is committing it? There is no law for him to read so that he can say to himself, “I must keep within the law”. As this stands, you commit an act which the Minister, in his opinion, feels will defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act. Sir, one asks oneself just how this would be applied. Presumably someone will report to the hon. the Minister that you have done something or that you have failed to do something; that you just sat on your farm and did not do anything at all on a certain night; in the opinion of the Minister you should not have sat at home that night; you should have gone out and done whatever someone thought you should do or expected you to do. You commit an offence if you sat at home and in the opinion of the Minister you should not have sat at home. This is unbelievable. How will it work? I suppose the man will be charged and the Minister will then prepare an affidavit saying, “In my opinion you have committed an offence; you have done something or you have not done something which will defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act”. Surely, Sir. this must come out. It is very difficult to understand why the hon. the Minister wants this. It is quite normal and acceptable that there should be regulations and that provision should be made for penalties for a contravention of those regulations.

Sir, that is my first amendment which I hope the hon. the Minister will accept. I may say that this proposal, which this Committee will accept, to insert the words which he proposes to insert, “specified in the regulations” after “ommission”, leaves the matter still very ambiguous and very unsatisfactory. In any event, Sir. he does not need this at all. He should specify in the regulations what the offences are so that everyone will know what they are and what the law is.

The third amendment which stands in my name is to add various further subsections at the end of the clause. It is to provide that if the hon. the Minister makes regulators in respect of paragraph (g), that is to say, if by regulation he purports to suspend either generally or specially the operation of the provisions of any law (and in terms of the Interpretation Act “any law” means an Act of Parliament or any other statutory enactment or the common law); and in making those regulations usurps the functions of Parliament, then he should come back to parliament for approval of what he has done. The proposal in that last amendment is that he should follow the normal form which has been adopted in this House where a Minister has been given the power in special circumstances to amend Acts of Parliament or the common law. That is that those regulations shall be laid on the Table of this House at the ensuing session of Parliament; that they should lie here for a certain number of days, and that if they are not approved of by both Houses of Parliament, they shall lapse. In other words, the proposal is not the normal one that Parliament may in fact disapprove of it, and if it disapproves during the session it lapses. This is put in a positive form so that it is a positive resolution and it is required to be done by this House. As you are aware, Sir, the rules of this House do not allow members of the Opposition to have a resolution such as that except on some private members’ days. In any event, they can be talked out if someone wants to take them out, by talking for 2½ hours on the motion. So it is put in this form that it will be laid on the Tables of both Houses and if not approved it will lapse. I indicated in the Second Reading that there is great precedent for this. In fact this one is almost word for word taken from the Civil Defence Act, where in times of emergency regulations can be made, and there are various other examples I can mention. But what astounded me was that far from being disturbed about the sort of powers being taken here, far from being indignant as members of Parliament, far from wanting to protect the rights of Parliament, hon. members opposite not only approved of it, but the hon. member for Kroonstad, who is a lawyer, went so far as to try to justify it by saying that in the days of the old “Sappe”, when we were in power, we did the same. But the remarkable thing is that he quoted several examples. The first one he quoted was the Agricultural Produce Export Act of 1917 and he referred to section 6 which says that the Governor-General may make regulations “not inconsistent with this Act”—that part he left out: perhaps he did not read it—as to the following matters which are then set out. That is perfectly normal; there is nothing about suspending the common law or suspending Acts of Parliament.

The next example he gave was the Marketing Act of 1937 and he referred to section 43, which says that the Governor-General may make regulations not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or any scheme. In other words, it is restricted again, but the hon. member apparently did not see that either. That is perfectly normal, but there is nothing about the power to suspend Acts of Parliament. Indeed, by the very words he is enjoined not to. Then the hon. member referred to the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act of 1930 as a further example, and there again it says that the Governor-General may make regulations “not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act”. But then he referred to an amendment to that in 1957, which provided that when the Minister is of opinion that a state of over-production exists or is likely to exist, the Governor-General may, on the recommendation of the Minister, proclaim in the Gazette that certain regulations which are the Schedule to the Act will come into force. We know what those regulations are because they are part of the Act, and he may declare them to be operative and he may amend the Schedule to the Act; in other words, he may amend these provisions, but manifestly and obviously he cannot do anything inconsistent with the main Act of which the regulations are the Schedule, but we know what they are, and certainly he does not have the power to suspend them. [Time expired.]

In as far as the argument advanced by the hon. member for Durban (North) is concerned, in regard to the amendment of clause 2 (1) (j), which has already been moved by the hon. the Minister, I find it difficult to understand what his problem is at this stage. As the clause was worded, this was clear already, but with the new amendment proposed by the Minister, i.e. that the line in question should now read “act … specified in the regulations”, the Minister puts it beyond any doubt that in terms of this clause only a competent court will be granted the power to convict a person in respect of an act which has in fact been defined in the regulations. In other words, the position is not what the hon. member wanted to insinuate in his Second Reading speech, i.e. that an offence could merely be created if the Minister considered that a certain act would not promote the objects of the Act. In other words, it is very clear, as the clause is worded now that the Minister’s amendment has been effected, that a competent court can only find a person guilty of an act which has been defined in the regulations. There is no question of the Minister being able to consider an act to be right and then to find a person guilty. The act must be defined in the regulations.

Then the hon. member referred to my Second Reading speech, and he wanted to suggest that I had not quoted precedents which have a bearing on this case. But what else does clause 2 in actual fact provide, except that the clause does not mention it? Clause 2 provides that the Minister may make regulations, but the Minister may not make regulations, even if this particular Act does not mention it, which are in conflict with the principles of the Act or with the provisions of the Act. After all, this has implicitly been incorporated in the Bill.

But the only principle of the legislation is that the Minister may make regulations.

The principle is not that the Minister may make regulations. The principle of the legislation is that the Minister shall control the production of eggs.

After all, this is the principle, and it is a very elementary principle of the interpretation of law that even if it is not stated in the Act, if a section in an Act grants the Minister the right to make regulations, he may only make regulations within the framework of the principle and the framework of that Act. Therefore, whether or not in this case it is stated in the Act—and I agree, it is not stated in the Act—I want to submit that this legislation contains exactly the same provision as is found in other Acts. Whether the other Acts provide that the common law may be amended by regulations, is not relevant here. What is relevant, is that in this legislation only such regulations as fall within the framework of the Act may be made, just as is the case with the other Acts. Therefore, if one allows this in one Act, also in an Act passed by the predecessors of the Opposition, one must also be able to allow it in another Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. ember for Kroonstad has made certain submissions to this House in amplification of what he has said during his Second Reading speech. I have respect for the hon. member’s position as a lawyer, but with respect to him I want to say that he is quite wrong in his interpretation. First of all, the hon. member has said that there is no difference between the provision which is being introduced by clause 2 and those provisions which exist in the Acts he has quoted. The reason is, he says, it is a necessary implication of the legislation which is before this House at the moment that none of the regulations which the Minister may make may be contrary or may be in conflict with the principles or provisions of this Bill. That was the case which was made by the hon. member for Kroonstad and he nods his head, admitting it. Now, this begs the question as was suggested by the hon. member for Durban (North) while the hon. member for Kroonstad was speaking. What are the principles of this Bill?

I have just mentioned it.

Yes, the hon. member has just mentioned it. He said: “To provide for the restriction of the production of eggs.” That is what he says is the principle of this Bill. What I want to know is, what restrictions would restrict the hon. the Minister in making regulations? He can make any regulation he likes which in his opinion is desirable or necessary for the restriction of the production of eggs. If that is the principle, and it is undoubtedly so, since this is the only principle in the Bill, that provision should be made for the restriction of the production of eggs, and if the Minister is given complete powers to make regulations in this regard, it means that he can make any sort of regulation of his own choice. He can make any regulation which in his opinion is either necessary or desirable to achieve that object. I have never in any legislation seen wider powers, there may be some Acts which have powers just as wide, but I have never seen any wider powers given to a Minister. This Government is coming with more and more legislation which gives Ministers the widest possible powers. There may be an Act which has as wide powers, but I know of none with wider powers …

Order! I just want to point out to the hon. member that he cannot discuss the Minister’s power to make regulations for the restriction of the production of eggs, because that has already been accepted in principle at the Seecond Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing that. I am merely pointing out to the hon. member, in answer to the argument he advanced, the distinction between the legislation which we are discussing and the provisions of the Acts which he quoted in support. That is all I am doing, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must not go too far.

I will not go too far, Mr. Chairman. I want to point out to the hon. member for Kroonstad and to the House that in clause 2 (1) (g) the Minister is given the power to “suspend, either generally or specially and to such extent as may be prescribed, the operation of any provision of any law or the common law in so far as it may in the opinion of the Minister be inconsistent with or hamper the enforcement of the regulations …” I do not believe that the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Kroonstad, or any other hon. member on that side of the House, can refer to a similar provision in any other law passed by this House. This is a most extraordinaraly wide provision to give the hon. the Minister the power to suspend the operation of any previous law passed by this House or of the common law if in his opinion it is inconsistent with the Act. This is a most extraordinary provision and to suggest that this is in similar terms to these Acts quoted by the hon. member for Kroonstad, is quite wrong. As the hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out, these Acts state that the State President may make regulations, but those regulations are specifically limited and controlled by the words which appear in every single one of these Acts, namely that the regulations so made may not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act in question. It is very easy to establish from the Act what those provisions are. They are certainly not the wide provisions which are being given to the hon. the Minister by this Bill, namely the power to do virtually what he likes by making regulations. In all the other Acts quoted by the hon. member for Kroonstad the legislature specifies what was to be controlled and in what way that control was to be exercised. Having done that the legislature then said that in order to give effect to these provisions you may then make regulations which shall not be inconsistent with the Act. That is a very different situation from what we are dealing with to-day, namely to say to the Minister “we are giving you the power to control the production of eggs and we are giving you carte blanche. You can make whatever regulations you choose. You can do this in whatever way you like and you can introduce whatever provisions you want. We give you a free hand.” What a very extraordinary way to legislate! I do not believe that hon. members on that side of the House can refer to a similar provision in any other Act passed by this House and I doubt whether they will be able to show us a similar provision passed in any Western Parliament. It is a most extraordinary wide provision and it cannot be justified. If one wants to control egg production, and it has been shown to be necessary, something we do not dispute on this side of the House, surely one can stipulate in an Act what the limits of that control will be and how it shall be exercised and put into effect in the same way as other control boards are limited by legislation passed by this House. They are not simply told to go ahead and do what they like by making regulations. The hon. member for Kroonstad is quite wrong in suggesting that there is a precedent for this in the Acts to which he referred.

In the little time left to me I want to deal with clause 2 (1) (j). The hon. member for Durban (North) has moved an amendment which I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept, because the amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not remove completely the problems which we have in regard to that clause. It is certainly an improvement in that it is doing away with the extraordinary power which was previously given to him. But it does not remove the problem completely. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) suggested that other Acts which I quoted here as precedents, only granted the Minister the right to make regulations in respect of specific matters. Sir, with all due respect, that is why clause 2 (1) was divided into various paragraphs. Just as it is in the case of other Acts, every paragraph grants the Minister the right to make regulations in respect of a specific matter. In subsequent clauses the legislature often refers back to the object of the Bill and the application thereof. In other words, powers are granted for the making of regulations, but only regulations in respect of specific matters which are closely bound up with the Bill. Similarly, the common law and any other Act may only be amended in so far as the objects of this Bill are concerned. I want to repeat that the Marketing Act, for instance, should be amended so that this Committee may report directly to the Minister and need not report to the Egg Control Board, which would be to the detriment of the producers. For that reason it is necessary to introduce this particular amendment which is contemplated in paragraph (g). Therefore, my argument is still, and I adhere to it, that this Bill grants powers of regulation in the way previous Acts have done so, and that these are reasonable powers, because they are strictly limited by the principles contained in this Bill. Hon. members on the Opposition side now want to suggest that terrible powers are being granted here, that they are terribly comprehensive and that the democracy is being jeopardised. But, Sir, this is an egg law. It deals with eggs only. The object is to restrict the production of eggs. My argument is that, since regulations can only be made in respect of eggs, these are extremely limited powers, and it is unnecessary to make such a fuss about them.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for Durban (North) that, as far as his amendment is concerned, I told him a moment ago that we would only accept the part in which “six” is replaced by “two”. We cannot accept any other part of his amendment, for to do so would only cause delay. I want to emphasize again what the hon. member said. There is no point in raising dust and saying that we are taking such wide powers and that we are going to do impossible things. This Bill deals exclusively with hens’ eggs, and nothing else. Now, the hon. member referred to paragraph (g) with concern. I want to tell the hon. member that that paragraph is only applicable to section 29 (2) of the Marketing Act. which provides that a committee of a control board shall still be subject to the final decisions of the board. That is what section 29 (2) of the Marketing Act has to do with paragraph (g).

†The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) said that we are getting complete powers to do whatever we want. The Minister can do whatever he likes to do.

That is right.

It is so, with regard to eggs. I cannot do whatever I would like to do in regard to any other subject. As I said during the Second-Reading debate, we want control as regards the production of eggs.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the amendment which appears on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. Webber, as follows—

The effect of this amendment is to alter the sentences which can be imposed on a conviction under the Act. The Bill as presently framed provides for a fine not exceeding R5,000 or imprisonment for such period not exceeding 12 months, as may be specified. The effect of this amendment is to reduce these two provisions to a maximum fine of R400 and to a maximum period of imprisonment of one month. In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North), we are not satisfied with the effect of this provision, the provision contained in clause 2 (1) (j). The hon. member for Durban (North) moved to omit the words “or commit any act (including any act of omission) which in the opinion of the Minister, may defeat the achievement of the objects of this act”. The amendment which has been accepted by this Committee, moved by the hon. the Minister, provides for the insertion after “omission”) of the words “specified in the regulations”. Now Mr. Chairman, that does not overcome the problem which has been referred to by hon. members on this side of the House, because the words “which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievements of the object of this Act” still remain despite the amendment of the hon. the Minister. It would seem that what is intended is to make it a contravention to commit acts, which includes omissions. which are specified in the regulations and which, in the opinion of the Minister, may defeat the achievements of the objects of this Act. That still means that the acts which are subject to punishment are related to the opinion of the Minister. And this we cannot accept. Having regard to that fact, the fact that the acts which are being made an offence, are related to the opinion of the Minister and not to what is stated in the regulations, a maximum fine of R500 is very high indeed. The same applies to a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months. That is one side of the argument. But there is another side to it. That is if one has regard simply to the overall effect of this clause, it will relate to egg producers who are small producers.

Only over 10,000.

That is right. Mr. Chairman, what is the hon. the Deputy Minister’s argument? Is it that those who produce over 10,000 eggs … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

This does not affect the principle. The hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to side-track the issue. The issue is simply that there are a very large number of small producers of eggs, who are as much affected by the provisions of this Bill as the large producers who could afford a fine of R5,000. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister and other members on that side of the House to refer in relation to such a large fine, a fine of R5,000, to the large egg producers who can afford a fine of this magnitude. But there are a very large number of small egg producers who would be put out of business by a fine of that sort. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that he himself said that one of the objects of this Deputy Minister that he himself said that one of the objects of this Bill and this Government was to assist and protect the small producer as against the large egg producer. How does he reconcile that approach with a maximum fine of R5,000 or imprisonment for 12 months, or both?

He can take the 10,000 hens in one go.

I want to come back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). Before I do that, could I just refer the hon. the Deputy Minister, while I am still on the subject, to the maximum fine that can be imposed on conviction under the Civil Defence Act which was passed by this Government in 1966. This obviously is an important Act, dealing as it does with what may be done in times of emergency. Even in relation to such an Act the punishment for contraventions of the regulations is merely R200 or six months’ imprisonment. or both. It is R200 or six months’ imprisonment in relation to an act under emergency conditions. I think when one has regard to the disproportion in what is being proposed, the extent of the fine becomes very clear. Sir, I want to go back to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). [Time expired.]

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister not to change the penal provisions contained in this sub-clause in any way. I have here in my hand a New Zealand magazine, the “Egg and Poultry Producer,” of May, 1970, which states the following, inter alia, in respect of the position in New Zealand—

Sir, I understand that consideration was given to this system, too, at the time of drafting this Bill. This sytem in New Zealand is a very unfair one. Suppose there was a fine of R1 per hen per annum for any number of hens in excess of the number specified in a permit —I understand that this was under consideration—it would mean that large producers who have 300,000 or 400,000 hens, would have had to pay a tremendous fine if they had, for example, 2,000 or 3,000 hens in excess of the numbers specified in their permits. In other words, the penal provision in this Bill is a much fairer one than that of New Zealand. Surely it is clear that a fine of R5,000 is the maximum. I think it is a reflection on our judicial officers to insinuate that this maximum fine will be applied to small producers. It is very clear that in the case of smaller producers and small offences—because, as regards the question of exceeding the number of hens specified in their permits, theirs can only be small offences—the judicial officer will exercise his discretion and impose a much smaller fine than the maximum On the other hand it would make this legislation simply ridiculous and it would defeat the object of this legislation completely if, in the case of large producers who have 400,000 and 300,000 hens, a small fine of, say, R400 had to be imposed in cases where the number of hens kept exceeded by far the numbers specified in the permit. Consequently I am asking the hon. the Deputy Minister not to give way in this regard, and to leave the penal clause unchanged.

Sir. the hon. member for Kroonstad knows what happens in New Zealand but he obviously has not read the Statute in which provision is made for a penalty of R1 per hen a year. Sir, during the Second Reading the hon. gentleman said that in the days of the United Party Government we passed this sort of legislation and then he named all the Act, but when we examined it to-day it was quite clear that this was not done in the days of the United Party Government. All that was provided was that the State President (the Governor-General in those days) could make regulations but those regulations had to be subject to the provisions of the Act in terms of which they were made and there was no provision that the common law or Acts of Parliament could be suspended, as is provided here, and one would have hoped that the hon. gentleman, who has now spoken three times, would have tried to have found such a case, but, of course, he will not. He will not even find such a case while this Government has been in power. One is surprised that the hon. gentleman was followed by the hon. the Deputy Minister in saying that this was not going too far; that it was not going too far to give the Minister the power to suspend Acts of Parliament and the common law. because this Bill just deals with eggs. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he could not understand all this fuss about his having the power to suspend Acts of Parliament and the common law because the Bill just deals with “hoendereiers”. If I may say so, Sir. if that is his attitude to the Bill that, after all, it only deals with eggs, then it is rather a cock-eyed view of the powers of Parliament. The fact that the Bill only deals with eggs illustrates the dilemma in which the hon. the Deputy Minister finds himself. Surely, Sir, if you want to control the production of eggs, then why cannot you control it in the same way as you control sugar production, wattle production and the various products under the Marketing Act scheme? Sir, this is a matter that we are not allowed to deal with at this stage. But what disturbs one is that the hon. the Deputy Minister has refused an amendment from this side of the House to the effect that if he suspends an Act of Parliament or if he suspends the common law, then the regulation in terms of which it is done shall come back to this House and shall only be valid if it is approved of by this House. Does the hon. gentleman feel that Parliament will not approve of the regulations that he may make?

It would take too long.

It would be a waste of time.

Sir, would it be a wate of time to bring it before Parliament? If the regulation is reasonable it will be passed and if it is unreasonable it will lapse, but in the meantime it would apply in terms of this amendment. As the amendment reads, nothing done in terms of it shall be invalid by reason of this House and the Other Place disapproving of it. Sir, the hon. gentleman must read the Bill. What is more, it is not must a case of this never having happened or of the United Party ever having done it—because it did not—but this was done under this very Government. It is provided in the Civil Defence Act that the Minister can make regulations in a time of emergency, regulations which may not be inconsistent with the Act. Those regulations, in terms of the same sort of procedure that the amendment provides for must be laid before this House and have to be approved of. But, Sir, the regulations come into force when they are made; they remain in force and anything done in terms of the regulations is quite valid and legal and incontestable unless this House disapproves of them …

And there is no delay.

There is no delay. Sir. Surely the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty, the principle that no Minister shall have the power to suspend Acts of Parliament or to do things which only Parliament may do in terms of our Constitution, is one which is important enough for this House to spend three or four hours or less in debate or no time at all if the regulation is reasonable.

This same Government, whenever it took the power for reasons of necessity to amend Acts of Parliament or the common law, has always provided that the regulations should come before this Parliament again for approval. It did it under the Civil Defence Act, as I have already mentioned. It has been done in terms of Act No. 36 of 1966 and in terms of the Commonwealth Relations Act and the Preservation of Coloured Areas Act in respect of which the Governor-General could repeal in whole or in part any law relating to these areas, but he had to lay it on the Table of the House, which positively had to approve of it. This is in the normal course of parliamentary government. I should like to remind the hon. member that when the South-West Africa Bill was before this House a few years ago we moved exactly the same amendment as this one, and the hon. the Minister in charge of that Bill came to a compromise with us. He conceded that the principle we were advocating was good and correct and he came to a compromize by saying that he would only have these powers for three years. But this hon. gentleman has now refused what this same Government even, with its scant appreciation of Parliament’s position in relation to the Executive has accepted to be the position over the years. The Deputy Minister says he will not do it because it just deals with eggs. Sir, this is a principle of parliamentary government and parliamentary sovereignty, and once you start getting away from it because it just deals with eggs you have given away a principle; and if this Deputy Minister is so afraid that Parliament will not approve of his regulations, it seems to me that it is even more necessary that there should be this parliamentary control. The Deputy Minister has said that he would not accept the amendment to provide for parliamentary surveillance of his regulations where, and only where, they amend an Act of Parliament or where they suspend the common law. In those circumstances it seems to me that quite clearly this power to suspend the common law and Acts of Parliament should not be in the Bill and I therefore move on page 5 to omit the paragraph which gives him this power. I move—

Before calling on the next hon. member to speak, I want to appeal to hon. members not to repeat arguments unnecessarily. The amendments which have been moved have limited meanings only, and they have been repeated many times in the last few speeches. I shall now have to take action against repetition.

I should like to make the hon. member for Durban (North) understand very clearly that I am the last person who wants to interfere with the rights of this Parliament. At the Second Reading I said that whenever we spoke of the suspension of certain powers that was intended to refer to section 29 (2) of the Marketing Act, which had to be amended here in order to grant those powers. But the hon. member should realize that I did not like if when he told me in the Second Reading that I, with this Bill, was the cause of interference with the precious powers of this Parliament. I had relevant discussions with law advisors, not necessarily on our side, and they told me that as far as this restriction of egg production was concerned, the Minister of Agriculture was not obtaining too many powers. The Bill indicated exactly what this was about, i.e. to make provision for the keeping of a certain number of laying hens. This is stated expressly in the Bill. It is prohibited to keep more than a prescribed number unless the person keeping those laying hens is in possession of a permit issued by a prescribed officer, and the said officer will have to be assisted by a committee of the Egg Control Board in the issuing of the permits. This is a summary of the entire Bill, and in addition provision is being made for the right of appeal to the Minister by persons who are dissatisfied with the decision of the officers. This is the spirit and the essence of this entire piece of legislation, and the object surely is not to interfere with or to ignore the sovereignty of this Parliament. Where I told the hon. member a short while ago that time would be wasted, I did not mean that it would be a waste of time to go to Parliament with any matter. What I meant was that we wanted a committee which can act and which can tell us that we may or that we may not.

You have not read the amendment.

I have read the amendment and I know how it works in practice. I read to the hon. member what the Wine and Spirits Control Act of 1940 provided. This legislation was passed when his people were in power. There is an explicit clause in that Act, and I read that to him, which can suspend the operation of any provision of any law insofar as it is inconsistent with the regulations or hampers the enforcement of the regulations or prohibits any act.

I am speaking of the schedule to that Act.

I think the hon. member for Kroonstad explained this matter very clearly.

†I want to reply to the hon. member for Musgrave. He said that the intention was, according to what I had said, that the small producer should be protected and he said that we were not going to do it now because of the proposed fine of R5,000 or a years imprisonment. It is a pity, because I think the hon. member does not understand the whole set-up. It only concerns the producer who expands by more than 10,000 hens per year. As I said in the Second Reading, at the moment we only have 169 producers in South Africa who have more than 10,000 hens. 10,000 hens are a hell of a lot of hens! Our intention is in particular to protect the smaller man and a fine of R5,000 for 10,000 hens according to the income is to my mind not a too big fine. The hon. member has said that the fine in New Zealand is five dollars per hen.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that the hon. the Deputy Minister has not understood the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). He says that he does not want to affect the powers of Parliament at all or infringe on the rights of Parliament. He has consulted with law advisers and he says that they are not necessarily favourable towards the Government at all. The point is that, as far as I can find out, no other Minister has ever been given the powers which this hon. Minister is seeking now. That is, to make these provisions without laying them on the Table. All we ask this hon. the Minister is that he lays these regulations upon the Table of this House for approval by Parliament. The hon. the Minister says that he cannot waste that time. He thinks it is going to be a waste of time, but I tell him that it is not going to be a waste of time. The hon. the Minister does not appreciate that. He makes regulations and they come into force at once. The only thing we want is that these regulations should then be laid upon the Table of this Parliament either for the approval or for the disapproval of this House.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear from the hon. the Minister’s remark that he does not understand what we are asking for.

That is repetition.

The hon. the Minister got up and replied and all I am doing now is answering the reply which was given by the Minister. The hon. the Minister said that there was going to be a delay. Surely, I am entitled to point out that there is not going to be any delay. Anyhow, I have made my point. The hon. the Minister said that he does not want to interfere with the powers of Parliament at all or touch its sovereignty in any way and that he has consulted law advisers. Now I ask the hon. the Minister to consult them and ask them what other Ministers have taken the powers that he is taking at the moment. In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned powers which were given to a Minister. However, I point out that all those powers which a Minister has under the Act that he has mentioned, are powers which are not inconsistent with the particular Act. The power he seeks entitles him to ignore any other Act.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to move the second part of the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), as follows—

In support I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to state what the purpose of these words is. The proposed provision provides that when the Minister is of the opinion that a state of over-production exists or is likely to exist, the State President may, by proclamation in the Gazette, declare the regulations to be operative from such date and for such definite or indefinite period as may be specified in the proclamation. In that context we find it difficult to appreciate what is intended by the words “definite or indefinite”. Surely it is sufficient and correct to say simply “for such period as may be specified in the proclamation”. What is the object of the words “definite or indefinite” in this context? We fail to see that they serve any useful purpose. One the contrary, as we view this provision, they merely serve to confuse the meaning of this provision. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to justify the retention of these words or to accept this amendment.

I would now like to return to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). In relation to his amendment I would like to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister’s amendment, which has been accepted, provides for the insertion of the words “specified in the regulations” after the word “omission” in clause 2 (1) (j). I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain what he intends by this provision. In terms of the amendment of the hon. the Minister he may by proclamation, according to clause 2 (1) (j) “provide that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of any regulation or commits any act including any act of omission specified in the regulations which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of this Act …” What does the hon. the Deputy Minister intend by this? Is he going to make regulations and is he going to specify in them certain acts and then say that this will be an offence if in his opinion these acts may defeat the achievement of the objects of this Act? Is this what the hon. the Deputy Minister intends? Is he going to state in the regulations that these acts which will be specified will become an offence if in his opinion they may defeat the achievement of the objects of this Act? If it is, Mr. Chairman, this is nonsense. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister make a regulation to the effect that certain acts will become an offence at some future date when he, in his opinion, deems that they may defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act? If that is what the hon. the Deputy Minister intends, we must certainly oppose this provision. But on the other hand, if the hon. the Deputy Minister simply intends to specify in the regulations certain acts which at the time that he specifies them he considers may defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act, then he does not need the words “which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act,” because he simply specifies them in the regulations. Because of the fact that he has specified them in the regulations, they become an offence for the future. So why does he want the words “which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of the Act”? As we see it, all that he needs, is the usual provision in regard to regulations which is the first part of paragraph (j), namely “that any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of any regulation” commits an offence. What more does the hon. the Deputy Minister want? Why does he want this nonsense about “which in the opinion of the Minister may defeat the achievement of the objects of the act”? If he puts that in, nobody knows in advance whether he is about to commit an offence by doing a certain thing. On the other hand, if the hon. the Deputy Minister specifies in the regulations certain acts which he says shall be an offence, persons are in a position to know in advance what acts constitute an offence. This is why we are so concerned about this provision. We ask him to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (North). Once again we have asked the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Kroonstad and other hon. members on that side of the House, to quote one other law passed by this House which has a similar provision.

Order! The hon. member for Durban (North) has referred twice to that fact.

Mr. Chairman, he has referred to it twice. That is true. But we have had no response from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Not one signle Act has been referred to.

Yes, but the hon. member must advance new arguments.

The same applies to paragraph (g). For the hon. the Deputy Minister to say the same as the hon. member for Kroonstad, namely, that a similar provision exists in the Wine and Spirits Control Amendment Act of 1940, is quite incorrect, because that Act states specifically that the regulations to be made …

Order! That argument has been advanced several times already.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister rose just before me and he repeated the argument and referred to the Act.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, just before the hon. member for Musgrave spoke, the hon. the Deputy Minister relied specifically on a piece of legislation which the hon. member for Musgrave is now referring to. Surely, Sir, the hon. member for Musgrave is entitled shortly to reply.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member’s time has expired.

I can in a certain sense understand the dilemma of the Opposition in regard to this matter. We must, however, not make the mistake of referring lightly to this matter and saying that we are dealing specifically here with the overproduction of eggs. That, and the actual control thereof, is the problem. What this Bill envisages at this stage is to state in broad outline what this matter relates to, and this is what clause 2 of this Bill does. Clauses and subsections go back to and are based on the regulations which the hon. the Minister will promulgate. With reference to these promulgations, it is in fact stated in subsection (g), which the hon. member for Durban (North) wants to have deleted entirely, what form the regulations will take. The hon. member should read it. It states that the regulations will be promulgated, “the performance of which is reasonably necessary for or incidental to the effective application”. That is what is going to happen. I cannot understand how it can cause such a problem. The argument that we are going further here than in any other Act in regard to powers allotted to a Minister, is no argument. This House can make any decision it wants to. We need not allow ourselves to be guided by the provisions of previous Acts. The measures which have to be adopted in terms of clause 2 are measures which will have to be adopted quickly. These are measures on which the hon. the Minister will have to decide at once. He has already said that it will be on the advice of the committee. We cannot accept that the regulations should quite imply be put off indefinitely. They must be promulgated at once.

I just want to return to the penalty clause, the penal provision in this Bill. If we look at the penal provisions, we see that we are in fact dealing with the situation where we are going to have to deal with major offences. What is at issue here is the number of laying hens which may be kept.

The hon. member for Christiana must not go too deeply into this matter, because those arguments have already been raised by the hon. member for Kroonstad.

I shall leave it at that then. One new argument which I should like to mention is that we have this very evening accepted a law here, the importance of which has been particularly emphasized. We have also accepted that this law will be further supplemented by way of regulations. The hon. members on the opposite side are terribly concerned now about the powers the hon. the Minister has in terms of these regulations. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that they should feel such concern.

The hon. member for Christiana has now made the same mistake of trying to simplify the matter. He asked, why are we concerned about this matter? We are simply dealing here with control over the production of eggs. [Interjection.] That is not quite correct, for the hon. the Minister—you cannot tell a hen how many eggs to lay or not to lay—is under clause (2) (a) going to impose certain obligations on a poultry farmer and introduce certain control measures. To say therefore that the argument simply relates to the production and the control of production of eggs is quite incorrect. The argument of this side is that we are dealing here with people who are practicing a certain profession who are now going to be restricted by the hon. the Minister, and that by way of regulations. I now want to refer the hon. the Minister to the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North). All the hon. member for Durban (North) is asking, is that when the Minister makes regulations in regard to paragraphs (g) and (h), he must submit these to the House of Assembly and to the Other Place. Specific provision for that is contained in the amendment of the hon. member for Durban (North). That is fair enough. It is not in any way going to affect his activities in exercising control over the production of eggs in South Africa in any way. The only respect in which it is going to be affected, is when he takes certain powers and interferes with the common law in South Africa. This will also help them in the case of paragraph (j), that is when someone has omitted to commit a certain act for example. This has nothing to do with the administration or the implementation of the principle which the hon. the Minister wants here, i.e. to control the production of eggs in South Africa.

I also want to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 2 (4). During the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech he told us that he was not going to concern himself about the man with 10,000 or less hens.

Do you agree with the hon. member for South Coast?

I want to return to this point. The hon. the Minister said that he was not going to concern himself about them. I am not quite certain now, and I hope the hon. the Minister will furnish an explanation. Am I correct when I say that this only relates to the man who has 10,000 or less laying hens? Or does it relate to the man who wants to expand by say 10,000 per year? I did not understand what the Minister was saying during his Second Reading speech, nor have I been able to understand it properly so far. This clause also contains a very important principle. Let us take the case of a person who on 28th March had a certain number of laying hens. If he has obtained a permit for them, he can obtain more. Am I correct when I say that? According to this clause he can obtain more than he had. In other words, the hon. the Minister’s argument that he only wants to protect the small farmer or small producer, is not quite correct either. Here the major producer is also being afforded an opportunity to expand further. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister owes it to this Committee to inform us precisely how he is going to exercise this power in clause 4 and still see to it that there will not be any overproduction of eggs in South Africa. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will avail himself of the opportunity to explain this to us.

Mr. Chairman, I have stated over and over what our intention is. I get the impression that the Opposition thinks I merely want to be difficult. By this time I feel that I will never be able to look a hen in the face again. I am trying to explain a simple thing, and the impression may perhaps be created that I want to be funny. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) spoke here about a specified or unspecified period; he wants an explanation of that. Sir, we cannot determine a specific time. The whole difficulty is that the legislation is administered by way of regulations. Therefore we cannot say anything definite now, but we have an idea that at some time or another there will be a surplus production of eggs, and then you must have the power to make provision for that at this stage, already. That is why the way the clause has been phrased is perhaps not very clear or acceptable to hon. members on that side. As far as (g) is concerned, and the question of submission of the regulations to Parliament, I made it clear to hon. members what our problem is. I should just like to come to this important point which the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned here. He said that the position is not clear to him where a man, for example, has 20,000 hens. I stated explicitly in my Second Reading speech that a farmer with a half-million hens, can increase that number annually by 10,000. If a man has 5,000 hens, he can also increase that number annually by 10,000; everybody is treated alike.

I just wanted that admission.

I have admitted it before. I am sorry that I cannot quote the regulations to that hon. member now, because the regulations mean less than nothing if this Bill is not even passed by Parliament. The hon. member states that it is not clear to him that we are in fact going to protect the small farmer. After all, the hon. member knows that there are producers in this country who want to increase the number of hens by a half-million. We were afraid that those big producers were going to hurt the small producers. Sir, I shall at the third Reading elaborate further on this, but I really feel that hon. members of the Opposition need not feel so concerned at they are professing to do.

Sir, I think the most disturbing statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister this evening as a Parliamentarian is that he has asked the law advisers whether he is taking too much power, that the law advisers have said that he is not and that therefore he is satisfied. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us under what other law an offence may be created when you do something or do not do something which you should or should not have done “in the opinion of the Minister”. That is the first point. Secondly, the hon. member for Transkei has challenged the hon. the Deputy Minister to produce any other Act where this Parliament has given the power to a Minister to amend his Act or to use his powers to amend the common law without coming back to Parliament for approval. The hon. gentleman should be concerned here not with what a law adviser says but with what hon. members in this House feel about their powers as a Parliament. That is the important thing. This is why we are here; this is why we have the various Votes so that this Parliament can subject to the scrutiny of the representatives of the people the acts of the Executive, of the Cabinet and of the Administration.

Sir, that is why we have a Parliament and that is why we have been spending the major part of this Session in examining what has been done and not done by the Executive. It is not a question for the law advisers; it is a question for the conscience, for the pride, of every single member of this House on whichever side they may sit. Sir, what one would like to know as well is this: When the hon. the Deputy Minister takes these powers to suspend Acts of Parliament and to suspend the common law, has he any idea as to which Act it is likely he may have to suspend and what part of the common law he thinks he may have to suspend. If he cannot answer that question, then he should not take this power. He must anticipate the likelihood of his having to use this power in some sphere, and surely if he does, then he should tell us. After all, he is asking us here to give up our own powers in this regard.

Lastly, Sir, can he tell us why it is, even if it may not be necessary to suspend these things, that he should have the power to suspend these things, if “in his opinion” it is necessary to do so. There is no test of this at all. The hon. gentleman says: “This only has to do with eggs, so do not worry about it.” Sir, we have had examples of this before. We have been told this before.

Order! The hon. member must advance new arguments now.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please answer those questions, and if he cannot then I ask hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House how as self-respecting members of this House they can support this clause.

The main thing is that the Opposition is against the control of eggs.

Nonsense!

The hon. member for Kroonstad very effectively replied to those questions. Now the hon. member says if my conscience and my pride permit it, I must carry on with this legislation. I want to tell him that my conscience and my pride allow me to carry on because it is for the benefit of the farmer. I am not here only as a Parliamentarian; I am here as a farmer and as a man who wants to protect the smaller farmers.

Amendments proposed by Mr. D. M. Streicher put and agreed to.

Question put: That paragraph (g) of subsection (1) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided;

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and first amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell negatived.

Question put: That the words “or commits any act (including any act of omission)” stand part of the clause:

Upon which the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell in line 33, page 5, dropped.

Amendment proposed by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture put and agreed to.

Amendments proposed by Mr. R. G. L. Hourquebie put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell in lines 10 and 12, page 7, put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. M. L. Mitchell put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half hour? There are three matters which I wish to raise during the half hour which you have granted me. They are firstly, the question of detention without recourse to courts of law; secondly, the general inefficiency and almost pandemonium and lack of co-ordination which have attended the hon. the Minister’s two Departments; and thirdly, the question of the continued existence of section 16 of the Immorality Act, which deals with sex across the colour line.

The first matter, namely the question of detention without recourse to a court of law, is one which has concerned this side of the House ever since this principle was first introduced by this Government. Some time ago, the portfolio of Justice was separated from the portfolio of Police. It was a matter which we supported at the time, because quite obviously the function of the Minister of Justice and the function of the Minister of Police are quite distinct. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice to see to it that our standards of justice are maintained and, what is more, are seen to be maintained. This hon. Minister is known as a person who, in dealing with legislation has. when he thought it right, had the courage to accept amendments from members when it might have seemed that there were members who thought he should not have done so. The Police activities in regard to detention without trial will have to be dealt with, obviously, under the Police Vote as well, but they concern the hon. the Minister of Justice more in the circumstances than they concern the hon. the Minister of Police.

In both the provisions under which there may be detention without recourse to a court, namely the 180-day provision and section 6 of the Terrorism Act, the Minister who is mentioned is the Minister of Justice, not the Minister of Police. Why did the legislature think that was necessary? Because the Minister of Justice is responsible to see that justice is maintained and he has the responsibility to see that the persons detained for interrogation, are not unnecessarily detained, are not improperly detained and are not improperly treated.

We have the situation with the 180-day detention that this is a provision—and I will deal with it just now—whereby the Attorney-General. who falls under this Minister, may detain a potential witness for up to six months if, in his opinion, it is necessary in the interest of justice. Because he thinks he may abscond, because he thinks he needs protection, he may detain him subject to conditions laid down by the Minister of Justice. That is his concern alone. Then we have the terrorism interrogation provision. The 90-day provision provided for detention for interrogation. The 180-day provision provides for the detention of witnesses, as I have said, because of the danger of their being tampered with or intimidated or their absconding and so forth. The Attorney-General issues a warrant for their detention.

Let us make no mistake about the difference between this type of detention and the detention which takes place under the 90-day provision which is not in force at the moment, and the provision in section 6 of the Terrorism Act. The Appellate Division, the Appeal Court of South Africa, has said that there is a distinction between these two types of detention. It has said indeed that in respect of detention under the 90-day provision—and the same applies to section 6 of the Terrorism Act—it is a question of interrogation. The necessity exsists because of the difficulties that obviously existed in the country at the time. But they went so far as to say quite clearly that this did not imply in any sense that they were entitled to use, in interrogating these people, third degree methods. Those were the words that were used. Mr. Chairman, I know that dealing with this subject, whether this has happened or not, is perhaps primarily a matter for the Minister of Police. Nevertheless, when the Appellate Division had the opportunity to discuss the 180-day provision, they distinguished between these two and said that this was a matter where the individual’s rights and liberty were to be given a far wider interpretation than they were under the 90-day provision or section 6 of the Terrorism Act. What they said there was that if someone was detained in effect for interrogation any person he may suspect. This hon. Minister has himself on many occasions indicated that he has the power to release any of these persons.

What concerns one when one deals with this matter is that the hon. the Minister of Justice appears to have left the matter of interrogation in the hands of the Police and that he has not exercised the power that he is entitled to exercise. In other words, he has the power to say that they may be realeased at any time or brought to trial at any time.

He must be satisfied.

Yes, he must be satisfied. But how does the hon. the Minister go about it? There were in the notorious terrorism trial which is now past in which the Attorney-General threw in the towel shortly after the trial had begun …

It was not such a trial at all.

What does the hon. the Minister mean “It was not such a trial at all”?

It was a tria’ under the Communism Act.

All right. They were detained under the Terrorism Act and were charged with contravening the Suppression of Communism Act. The fact of the matter is that shortly after the trial began the Attorney-General in the Transvaal threw in his hand. The hon. the Minister has indicated in answer to questions that there were a number of witnesses in that trial who were detained for periods up to 400 days in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. For how long were they witnesses? How long did the hon. Minister of Justice think they were going to be witnesses? Why were they held in terms of section 6 for interrogation and not in terms of section 215bis of the Criminal Procedure Act? That is the hon. the Minister’s responsibility. The question whether there has been an abuse of the powers of the Attorney-General, who falls under this hon. Minister, for detaining people for 180 days as witnesses and whether there has been an abuse Of the powers in respect of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, is a matter of grave concern to everybody who is a South African and who is proud of our legal system.

A question was asked during the early session of this year concerning detainees under the 180 day provision, falling entirely under this hon. Minister, and under section 6, falling under the Minister of Police. The hon. the Minister of Police felt that he could answer both questions. He did in fact answer both those questions in this House. How is that?

What is wrong with that?

What is wrong with that? The hon. the Minister of Police is not supposed to be responsible at all for the 180-day provision. That is a provision in terms of which you detain witnesses in their own interest and in the interest of the State. They are not detained for interrogation, as the hon. gentleman knows if he has read the cases I have referred to. That is what is wrong with that. Why is the hon. the Minister of Police answering questions about witnesses who have been detained? The Police should not be concerned with that. This is a matter for the Attorney-General. They are witnesses.

Why were you so stupid as to ask me?

There you are. I did not ask the question. But may I ask why that hon. Minister was so stupid as to answer it and to give himself away?

The stupidity is not on my part. It is there where it started.

You know, Sir, stupidity in this regard … When that 180-day provision was introduced in this House, on three occasions at every stage of the Bill the Minister of Justice at the time—now the hon. the Prime Minister—was asked whether this was going to be used for the same purposes as the 90-day provision. We had no answer at all. The only answer we got was that the Bill speaks for itself. Now I want to ask this hon. Minister whether this is in fact being abused and whether it is being used for purposes of interrogation. Now unfortunately it is not just the Bill speaking for itself. Most unfortunately it is now also all the reports and all the court oases which are speaking for themselves. I think every hon. member received a document from the Civil Rights League. I understand that every hon. member received it. Sir, it is a very ugly document, and it purports to be documented with the authorities at the end. I have not had time to look at every one of them.

It is giving you a lead in this debate.

No, it is not giving me a lead in this debate. There it is; it has been published. Is it true or is it not true? That is all that matters.

Why did you not make sure yourself?

Some of the statements, some of the difficulties in respect of these people who have been detained and some of the evidence comes from judges who have said in trials. ‘The defence has criticized this and said this, and without doubt some of it is true.”

If you have not gone into it, how can you comment on it?

There it is, Sir, have a look at it; it is a very ugly document.

But you have not gone through it.

I have gone through it; I have had a look at it and prima facie everything that is in here appears to be true. Everything is documented from newspaper reports and from Hansard. [Interjection.] Has that hon. gentleman read it? Sir, it is no longer just a case of the Act speaking for itself; it is now a case of looking at this as well. Perhaps that hon. gentleman will tell us whether it is true or not. Sir, this has done more harm than this document and all the other reports. That document is merely a compilation of those reports. It has done our legal system, for which this hon. Minister is responsible, more harm than anything else.

Will you not mention specific cases?

They are all set out there; there will be time to deal with them. Sir. this has done harm not only to us and our legal system here but it offends every- one else and it does us more harm overseas than I can tell you.

You are being much too vague; you must give us specific cases.

I have not got time to do so at this stage, but I promise the hon.

gentleman that I will give him further examples. But here is the document and if the hon. the Minister has not got a copy of it he can have this. These are all based on reports in newspapers. Has the hon. the Minister denied the newspaper reports mentioned in this document?

Has he checked them?

Has he checked these newspaper reports? There they are, Sir; they are undenied.

Has he read it?

Has he cared?

Sir, what happened with this so-called terrorism trial? It was not just a case of some people agitating about it; the lawyers at every university, the head committee of this party, the Law Societies, the Bar Councils—everyone of them—were concerned about it.

Which Bar Councils?

The Johannesburg Bar Council issued a statement on it.

When was that?

I have a cutting here; I will give it to the hon. member.

How many Bar Councils?

All these people, Sir, complained about it, and it was only when pressure built up that the hon. the Minister dealt with the matter. What was disturbing was that the hon. the Minister said that the police investigations appeared to have got to the stage where he could hand the papers to the Attorney-General. Surely Sir, this is a matter for the hon. the Minister to decide. These people were being held under an interrogatory clause. What was the hon. the Minister satisfied about? How does his mind work when he deals with this? Because he is the man who has to decide. One has the feeling that he handed them over to the police and said to them, “When you are ready, tell me, and then I will hand the papers over to the Attorney-General.”

That happens in all criminal cases.

And does the hon. the Minister say that that is the case under section 6?

The police must finish their investigations and then they report to me.

With this big difference, that the Attorney-General always has the power, as I understand it, where a docket is produced to chivvy the police along, to call them in and to say to them, “What is happening? I want a report.” Is that right? The hon. the Minister agrees. Did he do this with the detainees? Because the Attorney-General has no say in this. It is the Minister who has the say. Did he do it? Did he call them in and say: “Look, I am the Minister of Justice; justice demands that these people be brought to trial as soon as possible”? Did he do that? How many days did it take—two hundred or how many days?

Make your own speech.

Sir, what one would like to know is whose decision it is. Is it the decision of the Minister of Justice or the decision of the Minister of Police? Because it seems that the hon. the Minister of Justice did this only under pressure. Sir, it is time this whole question was reviewed. We have been at this ever since this measure was first introduced and we believe that there is no reason whatsoever why the power to detain people for interrogation or otherwise without recourse to a court, to continue.

Why did you support the Second Reading of the Bill?

What Bill?

The Terrorism Bill.

We supported the Second Reading of the Terrorism Act because at that stage a situation had developed on our borders concerning terrorists which had to be dealt with and it needed special legislation to deal with it. We made it very clear at the time that we would not support the interrogation provision and we moved amendments to it.

You gave them the green light.

Nonsense. Sir, what happened when we dealt with the interrogation clause? We were the ones who fought it and we fought it consistently. Right throughout the United Party has opposed every single clause which provided for detention without the right of recourse to the courts.

You should have opposed the Second Reading.

Forget about her.

It is just cheap Progressive Party propaganda.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has appointed a one man commission to investigate the Criminal Procedure Act and its amendments relating to various things. It is a great pity that he did not include in the terms of reference of that commission the very question as to what to do with these people; whether there is not some way of having the courts involved, instead of excluded with the result that all these damaging things happen in respect of these people. It is a pity that he did not. It is also a great pity that he did not appoint more than one Judge to that commission. Sir, the main witness of that commission, the cause of that commission, Mr. Justice Hiemstra, has said that he has a suggestion to make, as the hon. the Minister is aware, because he reads his Sunday Times like everyone else. Mr. Justice Hiemstra has a suggestion to make which that commission could well have investigated. In 1966 the hon. the Minister seemed to see light for the first time and he introduced a Bill which provided that witnesses in relation to terrorists and saboteurs could be detained for 14 days and then you had to go before a Judge. Sir, we welcomed that, because for the first time the courts came into the picture. I may say en passant that the hon. member for Houghton opposed it. But that is the way it goes. That provision has apparently not been used Why not?

Of course it is used.

How much has it been used? In relation to the number of people who have been detained in respect of terrorism or sabotage, how often has it been used? The argument that was used later on in the Terrorism Act was this: “This is happening right up on the borders of South-West Africa, and the conditions are so impossible that we cannot get these people to a Judge within 14 days.” I agree that up there you cannot. But the persons concerned in the recent trial were in Johannesburg, not on the borders of South-West Africa. Why did the hon. the Minister not use that provision, which is part of our law, and bring the courts into the picture in respect of these people? I want to know why not. I have a feeling that it is not because the police did not want him to use it. Perhaps he can explain to us why he did not.

Sir, I want to deal with the whole question of the administration of this hon. Minister’s Department. Time does not permit me to deal with that in full at this stage and I shall come back to it later on.

But, Sir, I want to deal also with the question of the relaxation of the Immorality Act, I think this section of the Act is itself in danger of becoming an immoral act. It has an ugly history. Everything has been tried to get convictions—using traps, and even using white women as a trap on one occasion; using men sitting in the boots of cars. In every respect everything has been tried. Whipping was allowed at one stage and that was reviewed, and the present tendency that one sees is that the courts are suspending all the sentences. I may say that this is an Act which affects everyone …

Why do you say that the courts are suspending all the sentences?

The tendency at this stage is to suspend the sentences, and the tenor of all the judgments of the Supreme Court in respect of these matters is that it is desirable in those circumstances to suspend the sentences. Sir, no one is free from it; it affects everyone—priests, rich and poor, young and old, advocates, attorneys, doctors, clerks and everybody else. The consequences of this Act for the family of the accused person are very often worse than they are for the person concerned, and one wonders whether this subject cannot be dealt with under the laws of prostitution. One wonders whether we should go on with these inherently distasteful methods of collecting evidence. Recently Mr. J. J. F. C. Heinrich, a sociologist at the Stellenbosch University, examined the position and said that between 1958 and 1968 ten cases of suicide by white men during and after prosecution were reported. He referred to the stigma attaching to prosecution. He said that the emotional and psychological damage to the next-of-kin was irreparable and completely out of proportion to the nature of the offence. He said that it lent itself to the most dangerous form of blackmail and intimidation; that the next-of-kin received the same measure of punishment as the victim, and that the fear that the Whites would lose their biological identity if the Act were to be repealed was unfounded.

Are you arguing against the Act?

Sir, what I am saying is that the evidence at this stage suggests that it is doing more harm than good and that it is not achieving its purpose; that is what I am suggesting; the evidence suggests it. This matter is discussed here, as the hon. the Minister has now demonstrated so well, as an emotional issue. It is not an emotional issue. It is a matter that must be dealt with impartially and examined by the people who know, who are concerned with it and who can make a contribution. Sir, we have asked for years for a commission to be appointed consisting of sociologists, of members of the churches, of senior police officials who have to administer this Act and of magistrates and Judges, people outside of this forum. Let them examine it in the light of the evidence, because prima facie a case has been made out for a proper investigation. Consider the misery and degradation that follows upon a conviction. I may say in this respect that the results are the same even where there is an acquittal, and this cannot be denied. Let me point out to the hon. the Minister that in the last year there were 1,184 cases before the courts under that section. The hon. the Minister has indicated that each case is carefully considered before a prosecution is instituted. There were 1,184 prosecutions and there must have been other cases where there was no prosecution. Each of these cases involved all the ingenuity of the police, the time spent in peeping, the setting up of traps and the time of at least two policemen because you have to corroborate the evidence in sexual cases. Of these people 43 per cent were acquitted, and yet in that same period, according to the latest Police report, we had 1,086 unsolved murders in South Africa. You tell me, Sir, whether this is a proper use of the police force. I say to the hon. the Minister that prima facie there is a case for a proper investigation, not in an emotional forum, which this can so easily become, but by the people who have to administer and enforce the Act.

With what object?

With the object of deciding whether it is worth keeping this section on the Statute Book.

You are not prepared to move for the repeal of the Act?

The Minister’s memory is very short. He will remember when a Bill was introduced in this House by a private member, the hon. member for South Coast speaking for the United Party said he wanted a commission to look into it.

No, he did not.

And he then said that if the Government was not prepared to accept that and was not prepared to appoint a commission, we would vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, which was to abolish section 16 of the Act. It seems the hon. the Minister has forgotten that. But let me remind the House that that was our attitude and it is still our attitude.

Let me deal, in the short time available to me still, with the administration of the hon. the Minister’s Department. The hon. the Minister sits here with his Vote coming up and he is not in a position to deny it when I say, as I do say, that there are people whose cases come up and they have remands from 10 weeks to five months in the magistrates’ courts and the regional courts before coming to trial. A number of them are then not asked to plead, having remained in custody for months, and the case is withdrawn and off they go. When I asked the hon. the Minister how many people were remanded and how many were kept he did not know; he did not keep statistics. When I asked him in regard to the Prisons Department how many people were released before half their period had expired, how many who were sentenced to four months and under, were released on arrival at goal, etc., he could not tell me. When he was asked how many people were convicted in the magistrates’ courts and superior courts to sentences of imprisonment of up to four months, four months to a year, etc., he did not know. He said statistics are not kept in this regard. How on earth can one plan when there is no co-ordination whatever? You have the Police complaining and you have the Judges complaining. [Time expired.]

This evening the hon. member for Durban (North) gave one of the best displays of double standards which I have ever heard in this House.

Oh, that is politics.

No, it is not politics. I shall tell you why. I never like agreeing with the hon. member for Houghton, but this evening she made an interjection to the hon. member for Durban (North), to which he could not reply, i.e. that when the Terrorism Act was before this House, that side of this House agreed with it completely, and the hon. member for Durban (North) was their mouthpiece who agreed with it.

That is not true.

When the hon. member for Houghton challenged the hon. member for Durban (North) to say that they had disagreed, he made an elaborate excuse and said that at that stage the situation had been of such a nature and the position on our borders had been developing in such a way that they thought such a law was justified. But now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North), because he knows much more about these matters than he wants to show, whether the position this evening is any different to what it was at the time when he agreed with the Terrorism Act? And he knows very well what the reply will be. He knows very well that as far as terrorism is concerned the situation has in fact worsened since that time, and why does he want to make such a fuss this evening about the Terrorism Act if he knows that our country is still faced with the same dangers as in that year? I say it is a case of completely double standards, and I want to give another example, from the hon. member’s own mouth. The hon. member, of one of. those hon. members, asked the hon. the Minister of Police a question here. When the hon. the Minister of Police was friendly enough to reply to hon. members on that side, because he knew what the reply was, we get the type of argument from the hon. member for Durban (North) that we got this evening: Why did the Minister of Police reply instead of the Minister of Justice? Sir, I may say that type of politicizing and that type of trick are a political disgrace. If the hon. members were aware of the fact that the question should have been put to the hon. the Minister of Justice, why did they not openly put the question to him? Why do they set up all sorts of little traps in order to try to catch out the Ministers, and when the Minister is decent enough to reply because he knows what the reply is, they put forward the type of argument we heard here this evening.

We have heard of this Civil Rights League, and now I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (North) whether he knows who they are. Does he know them? He purported to quote from their document. Does he know who these people are? Has he ever read this document, which he held up as a disgrace for the Government? Let me read just one little case to him, that of Mr. Geoffrey Ludin. In this document the following is stated—

And the hon. member should listen to this—

Then he realized that he was telling a lot of lies. Questions were being put to him and he was betraying his friends. This is what made him angry, because he, as a communist, realized that he was slandering the other communists. This is actually what made him angry, and this is what the hon. member has to say here about the wonderful Civil Rights League. I just want to say that it is a disgrace that the hon. member took up the cudgels for these people in this way.

Let me just remind the hon. member of this. People must realize that we in South Africa are involved in a death struggle for our security, not only against communists and terrorists outside South Africa, but also against terrorists inside South Africa, In the past week again we had the case where the World Council of Churches voted a sum of money for the enemies of South Africa. And then we are in the position that we have to conduct this type of debate, in which, in respect of an Act which that side of the House accepted, we have to defend ourselves, instead of their standing up and saying that the Act should be applied even more strictly in order to safeguard our country. Instead of saying this, they stand up and make all sorts of criticisms and quote this type of league as examples. That hon. member knows as well as I do that the communists are using our religion in order to undermine us in South Africa. They use the churches where they can. They make use of every innocent organization in a Western democracy in order to attain their goal. They use our courts in order to gain publicity, and that hon. member knows as well as I do that if the terrorists were to succeed in taking over South Africa one day, which will not happen, because this side of the House is there, the courts would disappear completely. They employ attacks on our police in order to discredit them. Let me just read to you from a document entitled “A Directive by the South African Communist Party”. I shall quote only one paragraph to you. This is the “directive”—

Here it comes, Sir; here are the stories, and the hon. member falls for it in his naivety—

We were at the gaol and we heard how they complained about one thing and another—

This is the directive of the Communist Party and then people actually stand up in this House and launch a tremendous attack on the Government because we are fighting the terrorists tooth and nail. Let me assure the hon. member that as long as the National Party is in power, he must know that we will keep South Africa free of terrorism, whether the Opposition likes it or not.

I come to the so-called Immorality Act. Here we again have an egg-dance. It is pretended that our side of the House has suddenly introduced the Immorality Act, but the Immorality Act has been in existence for a long time. Sir, do you know how long this Act has been in existence? The first one was introduced in 1893 in the Cape, i.e. Act No. 25 of 1893. Then there is Act No. 36 of 1902. The first Immorality Act in the Transvaal was passed under the English administration, i.e. Ordinance 46 of 1903. [Interjections]. Those people were a little more balanced than this hon. member for Houghton. That Ordinance 46 of 1903 read as follows—

And do you know what the penalty was? Six years and 24 cuts. It was not a National Party that passed this Act; it was Lord Milner. It was the dear Lord Milner, who is to be lauded by the United Party, and the penalty was 24 cuts. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Prinshof adopted the typical argument used by hon. member opposite in a debate of this nature. The hon. member for Durban (North) was dealing with the question of detention and he produced evidence to this House to show …

What evidence did he produce?

The hon. member presented his argument and it is up to the hon. member for Potchefstroom to stand up and make his speech, but he must stop continual interjections.

Order!

The hon. member for Prinshof, whom I am dealing with at the moment, suggested that we are simply assisting the terrorists by taking up the attitude which the hon. member for Durban (North) took up.

I did not say you did it deliberately but you are certainly assisting them.

That is the typical argument advanced by the Nationalists when they have no answer to the arguments of this side of the House on their merits. What attempt did the hon. member for Prinshof make to answer the hon. member for Durban (North) on the merits of his argument? None whatsoever. It was a simple, political, emotional, tub-thumping speech which amounted to nothing at all. Will the hon. member for Prinshof dispute that Mr. Justice Hiemstra is an honourable judge? Will the hon. member for Potchefstroom dispute that Mr. Justice Hiemstra is an honourable man and an honourable judge?

Who ever disputed it?

Will the hon. members for Prinshof and Potchefstroom dispute that he is a reasonable man, and that he is not in favour of terrorists and terrorism? Of course they will not dispute that, and this is the man whom the hon. member for Durban (North) quoted as having called for an investigation, for a new method which would do away with this indefinite detention of suspects. Those were the words of the hon. Mr. Justice Hiemstra.

He never did it.

The hon. the Minister says he never did it.

You quote the Sunday Times as your authority. He never did it.

The hon. the Minister will have his opportunity to speak and I hope he will deal with this matter. I hope he will say exactly what Judge Hiemstra’s attitude is towards the detention provisions which this Government now has. He is the one who called for an investigation into this. This is one of the reasons for the Botha Commission.

What does Sir Richard Luyt say?

The hon. member for Potchefstroom can make his own speech, as I have told him before. He is a continual interjector and I will take no notice of him.

You are supposed to speak standing up, Louis.

Shut up, you.

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

Coming to the Immorality Act, the hon. member for Prinshof referred to the fact that this Act has been on the Statute Book for a long time. Of course it has, but this is one of the very points of the argument of the hon. member for Durban (North), namely that as a result of our years of experience of this Act it is obvious that its effects on the family and on other persons involved are so serious that it is time that a commission investigated this whole law to see whether in fact it is doing more harm than good and whether in fact it should remain on the Statute Book.

Order! The hon. member is now reflecting on the law. According to the rules of this House he may not reflect on any law.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to you …

Order! That is my decision. The hon. member is reflecting on the law.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Musgrave has not said that the so-called Immorality Act is a bad law …

No, he said it must be withdrawn.

He did not say that either.

I have given my ruling. The hon. member for Musgrave may proceed.

May I not address you on the matter, Sir?

No, I have my ruling.

Am I to understand that one may not address the Chair on a point of order?

That is not the point. The point is that I gave my ruling, namely that in my opinion the hon. member made a reflection on the law.

All I want to ask is that you reconsider the matter and hear argument on the matter before you enforce your ruling. Sir.

I have given my ruling and it is final. No one may reflect on the law.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it not customary in this House when a ruling is given for hon. members to address the Chair on a point of order and submit argument that perhaps the ruling that was given might in the circumstances of the argument and the facts be incorrect and that the Chairman might reconsider his ruling when he has heard that argument?

No, I am bound by the rules and Rule No. 118 says that “No member shall reflect upon any Statute, except for the purpose of moving for its repeal”.

My point is that the hon. member for Zululand was addressing you on a point of order, not as to whether that is the rule or not—we accept that is the rule—but he was addressing you on the question as to whether or not the hon. member for Musgrave was in fact reflecting upon the law. That is the argument, Mr. Chairman, and I do ask you to hear the hon. member for Zululand before you make your ruling. Otherwise there is no point in addressing the Chair on a point of order if the Chair has made up its mind and will not listen to any argument.

It is not a matter of not listening to argument. In the opinion of the Chair the hon. member for Musgrave reflected on the law as it stands. In terms of Rule No. 118 I cannot allow that.

Mr. Chairman, the issue as to whether or not the hon. member did or not is being disputed and that is why a point of order was raised.

It is a matter of opinion and in the Chair’s opinion the hon. member reflected on the law. The hon. member for Durban (North) must not argue any further with the Chair. The hon. member for Musgrave must proceed.

Mr. Chairman, may I addressed you on a point of order?

I have given my ruling and in my opinion the hon. member was reflecting on the law. He must now proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I want to seek your guidance on a point of order. You have rightly drawn our attention to Rule No. 118. Is one not permitted in this House to say Chat legislation is not having Che desired effect in the administration of that legislation?

That is correct. The hon. member for Durban (North) discussed the administration side, while the hon. member for Musgrave reflected on the law. The hon. member for Musgrave may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, I hope I will be allowed a little more time. In view of your ruling I do not propose to say any more on the question of the Immorality Act. I would now like to discuss certain aspects from the latest Prisons Report This report indicates certain very alarming features in this country, a state of affairs which I believe requires investigation. Amongst the several reasons why I say this, are firstly that from the report it is obvious that the daily average prison population during the year 1968-’69 was no less than 88,079. This represents an increase of 35,000 from the year 1959-’60, which is the first year quoted in the statistics. This 88,000 is the daily average out of a population of 18 million. [Time expired.]

It is with disappointment that one is again experiencing this extremely negative attitude on the part of the Opposition this evening. They have once again, for the umpteenth time, tried to create an atmosphere which boils down to this, that certain measures, and particularly their application, are allegedly placing us in a bad light overseas as well as in this country. We cannot conduct a useful and constructive debate on the Justice Vote as long as the hon. members on the opposite side do not want to see these matters in their true perspective and simply refuse to do so. It is necessary to apply these measures because certain phenomena are occurring here which are not peculiar to our part of the world alone, but which occur throughout the world. It is illuminating that wherever in the world phenomena occur which are similar to those this Government and this country have to contend with, the countries and governments concerned take corresponding measures. It is the overriding duty of the State to insure that the security of the people is maintained. By that I mean all groups of the population, not only a certain group. What the Opposition apparently does not appreciate is that these attacks which are being launched against us are also being launched against all the population groups of Southern Africa. They fail to see what is at stake here. In order to enlighten them a little more, I just want to read to them what the Indian Minister of Foreign Affairs said when he discussed the Indian “Preventive Detention Bill” in the Indian Parliament. He said that India’s struggle was directed against—

That is the position there. The matter does not end there. Have the Opposition heard of the Criminal Code of the United States of America in so far as it is applicable to espionage and censorship? Are they aware of the measures in the U.S.A. and in some states of the U.S.A. in regard to public disorder? Are they aware of Malaya’s Internal Security Act of 1960 and. do they know how it is applied? Are they aware of the Anti-Subversion Act of 1957 of the Philippines? Have they heard of Korea’s Anti-Communist Act. of Thailand’s legislative measures of 1967 against communistic activities and of Indonesia’s similar legislation of 1966? Pakistan, Burma, Cambodia and Laos have passed similar measures against disturbances and activities which amount to subversion and undermining of the existing state authority. There is Ghana’s Preventive Detention Act of 1958, Nigeria’s State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree and the Suppression of Disorders Decree of 1966, Tanzania’s Preventive Detention Act of 1962, and Uganda’s Public Order and Security Act of 1967. Do the hon. members of the Opposition know what happened in Zanzibar? Then there is Burma. Burma is U Thant’s home country. What happened there after the military coup d’etat in 1962? The President, the Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet and the Chief Justice were placed in “protective custody”, and by 1966 they were still in “protective custody”. This is the background against which these matters must be seen and judged.

I may now be told that I have only quoted examples from countries in the East and in Africa, but let us take a look at the position in Northern Ireland. There have been interesting debates in the British Parliament in this connection. What happened in Northern Ireland? They are not faced with such serious threats as we are faced with. The population connection. What happened in Northern Ireis an ethnically homogeneous one. They only have a difference in religion. That is all. What happened in the House of Commons in 1969 when Mr. Wilson was still Prime Minister? A certain honourable lady by the name of Miss Devlin urged Mr. Wilson to repeal the Special Powers Act. That Special Powers Act contains more drastic provisions than any of the Acts mentioned here by the Opposition this evening. How do we know how those provisions are applied? What was Mr. Wilson’s reply when this lady pressed him for the repeal of the Act? He first stated that he would like to see it repealed and that such proposals had been made, but then he outlined the circumstances and said?

In those circumstances, not a government in the world would have gone on with what was proposed concerning special powers until they were assured that there would be a period of law, order, peace, calm and quiet.

There is civil war in Northern Ireland.

No. All that had actually happened at that stage was that the water supply of Belfast had been cut off. Large-scale rioting had not yet occurred. The point I want to emphasize is that any government anywhere in the world, if it wants to act responsibly, has the duty of insuring that the security of its people is maintained. This is an overriding principle, which, as we all know, can be traced back to the Twelve Tables of Rome which were drawn up in the year 450 B.c. It amazes one to hear this ignorance here this evening. It amazes one that this debate can be conducted in such an unrealistic atmosphere. I am not aware that the hon. the Minister or previous hon. Ministers rejoiced vociferously when some of these measures had to be passed here. As far as I know, it was expressly stated that they were obliged, for the sake of the security of this country, to introduce these measures. We have freedom. We on this side of the House as well as hon. members on that side of the House can speak in this debate this evening.

But do those hon. members realize that it is probably due to those measures and their application that we have the privilege this evening of participating in this debate so freely and without any inhibition? This applies to the hon. member for Houghton as well.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as though hon. members on the other side of the House cannot or do not want to understand the argument of hon. members on this side of the House. We realize that the phenomena which have accurred do in fact occur. We are not opposed to these phenomena being combated. We are opposed to the method by which and the way in which these phenomena are being combated. Surely we cannot stand here as a Christian nation and say that we adopt the attitude that “the end justifies the means”? This is not a moral attitude to adopt. Then hon. members on the other side speak with so much satisfaction about the way in which the Government is combating these phenomena. When this Opposition was in power, it succeeded in combating a much worse form of this same problem much more effectively. The actions of members on the other side can be described by quoting the words used by Joseph Conrad in his “Heart of Darkness”, when the main character described another character in the following terms: “A paper maché Mephistopheles, and if you were to put your finger through him, you would find inside a little loose dirt, maybe.”

This evening I want to raise another very serious problem: The Department of Justice is most definitely one of the most important Departments in any society. We know it is said that “man is a social animal”, but man can also be the instrument by means of which that community is destroyed. Therefore he must be controlled by certain laws. He must abide by these. There must be a system according to which those laws which control him and which must keep the society intact are administered. This is in fact the task of the Department of Justice. If it were to happen that this Department of Justice collapsed, so that it could no longer fulfil its function properly, the whole society would collapse with it into anarchistic chaos. That is why I find it so alarming to see in what direction this Department is moving at the moment.

As a society increases in numbers and in complexity, the machinery of the administration of justice within that society must also increase. Accordingly we find that the number of posts in the Department of Justice has increased by 8.5 per cent from 1964 up to the end of 1969. However, in spite of this increase in the total number of posts we find that at the end of 1969 we had fewer permanent units in service than at the end of 1964. The position is still deteriorating. From figures supplied to the hon. member for Green Point during the first half of this year, it appears that the position has since deteriorated by approximately another 100 posts. At the end of 1964 there were 3,554 staff members in service. At the end of 1969 there were 3,505, in spite of a growth of 8.9 per cent in the permanent labour force. We therefore find that, where we are now standing at the beginning of the third dynamic decade, we have a smaller permanent labour force than there was during the first half of the second dynamic decade. Although I do not want to cast any reflection on the very valuable and very good work which is performed in the Department by the temporary units, it is surely true that the permanent units within a department are the true backbone and core of that department, because they are the people who have made that department their career.

In addition, we know that in 1969 the entire administration of justice in South-West Africa as well as the staff and vacancies were taken over by this department. In spite of this, the total number of permanent post has decreased by six since 1968. This is quite understandable, because it is a result of the abolition of posts which took place then. After all, it is of no use to create more and more posts while the labour force is becoming smaller and smaller, as was done in the past. In spite of that takeover, there was a loss of 351 permanent units. That is to say, there was a net loss of nine per cent in one year. This is a tremendous loss for one year. One asks oneself the question whether the Minister, in abolishing these posts, simply also abolished the additional staff which he obtained. If we continue losing staff at this same rate, we shall be without a Department of Justice before the end of the dynamic third decade.

Give us a solution.

The hon. member must just be patient. I shall give him a solution in a moment. The question immediately arises: how are these staff members being lost? In the first place, we must look at the Department as a whole That is to say we must consider the position of the entire staff, both permanent and temporary units. According to the Department’s latest report, the vacancies were …

Which year?

It is the report for 1969. I do not know whether the hon. member has received it yet, but I have. We must view the Department as a whole. There were 359 vacancies, excluding those which were filled by temporary staff. In other words, that was the net number of vacancies in the Department. This represents an increase in vacancies, since 1968, of 116. How are these people being lost? Let me refer the hon. member who did not receive the annual report, to page 10. There we see that the number of resignations was 659. Thirty-eight members of staff were dismissed and 96 retired. Then there were 2 absconders and 69 transfers. Eighteen officials died. If we do a simple sum, we see that the total loss for the year was 882 members of staff. If we look at the gains, we see that there were 38 transfers from other departments. One hundred and fifty-three officials were taken over from the South-West Africa Administration and new appointments on probation amounted to 836 members of staff. This amounts to a total gain of 1,027. If we compare the figures, we find that there was a net staff gain of 145. Yet a loss of 116 was indicated. I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could explain to us what happened to the 267 staff members who apparently disappeared in front of our eyes.

Included in the total loss of 882, if we can accept this as being correct, there were 659 resignations. Therefore the lion’s share of the losses was as a result of resignations, almost half of the resignations, namely 314, were resignations of administrative assistants. Therefore they were mainly new officials, young men who had entered the service. We now have the phenomenon that we are getting an increasing number of senior staff in the Department. The young people who start working are continually coming and going. In other words, as the senior members are promoted, an ever larger vacuum is being formed at the bottom. As a result there is nothing to maintain this department in the future. Most administrative assistants resign in their first, second or third years. The majority of these people resign during their second or third years.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.