Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

This Bill is relatively simple and in fact self-explanatory; consequently I will not deal with it at length. The main object of this Bill is to provide for the appointment of a vice-rector in order, by so doing, to furnish assistance to the rector.

A rector of a Bantu university, such as the University of Fort Hare, has a very responsible and often unenviable task. In addition to such duties as are laid down by rules and which are possibly more or less the same as those of the rector of a White university, there are many others which arise firm the particular situation obtaining at a Bantu university and which in certain respects differ greatly from those at White universities. All these duties together sometimes result in unfair and exacting demands being imposed on the rector. Public relations, even in cases where there is a department of development, form an important part of the work of a rector, in fact, of all rectors. The task of the head of a White university in this respect is, however, limited to the White community. At a Bantu university, on the other hand, it is essential that there should be liaison with both the White and the Bantu communities.

In addition, regard must be had to the fact that the Bantu universities form an important part of the implementation of State policy, which necessitates continuous liaison and contact with the Government departments concerned and with departments in the Bantu homelands themselves. These essential duties, which often involve being absent from the university, can be carried out properly and satisfactorily only if there is a person who can ensure that continuity in the internal activities is not interrupted by absence. Experience has definitely shown that continuity and consistency in action and in the implementation of many important aspects of policy are impaired if work to be done by substitutes is dealt with on an ad hoc basis. As regards the liaison with students, too, the set-up at Bantu universities differs considerably from that at White universities, and very heavy demands are made on the time of the rector of a Bantu university. The rector’s success in being accepted as a leader by the students is in a special sense determined by his relationship with them. Practice has shown that on account of the Bantu’s outlook on certain matters, the problems and needs of individuals or groups of students cannot be dealt with satisfactorily on the clerical or even on a considerably higher administrative level. The Bantu student wants his case to be heard by the highest authority and the students want to present their cases to the rector himself or to someone very close to him. This is in fact what his deputies will be. This unavoidable responsibility, however, imposes a burden on the rector and makes it difficult for him to fulfil his statutory obligations. Because the external responsibilities and duties of the rector of a Bantu university are greater and more extensive than those of his counterpart at a White university, it follows automatically that his burden as regards internal responsibilities should be eased as far as possible and that unfair demands should not be made of him. The rector has a special duty in regard to planning, that is to say, academic, administrative and structural planning. Here, again, planning is linked with departmental co-operation and approval, which means that committee work alone becomes an almost full-time job. Rectorial assistance will be able to make a great contribution in this respect.

Furthermore, it is proposed that the vice-rector, like the rector and other professors, will form part of the constitution of the university.

I should like to draw the attention of this hon. House to the following clauses in particular:

Clause 2: This clause governs the appointment, conditions of service, powers, privileges, duties and functions of the proposed vice-rector. It also provides that the rector may delegate some of his powers to the vice-rector, but without the rector, who is the chief executive officer of the university, being divested of such powers.

Clauses 3 and 4: Here it is proposed that the vice-rector shall be a member of both the council and the senate of the University. This arrangement will ensure the necessary continuity in the work. There is actually nothing more to be said about this Bill, and for the sake of expediting the business of the University of Fort Hare, I hope this will meet with general approval.

Mr. Speaker, approximately two years ago Fort Hare was given its constitution and we are now being asked to amend it. The Minister in motivating the second reading has referred to the duties of the rector. He says that they are onerous and that the rectors of these universities cannot be likened to the principals or rectors of White universities in that they have to have liaison not only with the Africans but with the White people as well and with Government departments. He says too that the students want to be in touch with the top official and if he is not available there must be somebody appointed in his place. He says that these are the reasons which necessitated the amendment. In 1969 when the principal Act was passed we were told that there were 426 students at Fort Hare and that there were 97 on the staff, that is to say, 4.5 students per member of the staff. If you took only matriculated students and not those who enrolled for diplomas there were three students to every member of the staff. The trend at that time was that the number of students was decreasing, and if this trend continued, then of course, there would be still fewer students per teacher. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell the House what the position is at the moment at Fort Hare. Has there been an increase in the number of enrolled students and what is the position with regard to the ratio of students to members of the staff? If in fact the number of students has decreased or has not increased materially, it would seem that the number of students compared with staff is very small and there would not be the same necessity for the appointment of an extra administrative officer. I want to know why this post was not considered necessary when the principal Act was passed. There is the question too of additional costs because this officer will have to be paid. In 1969 when the principal measure was discussed, Mr. Moore then calculated that it was costing R2,600 per annum for a matriculated student at Fort Hare and R1,700 for a diploma student. Sir, that is many more times as much as the cost of educating a White student. The Minister, in the same debate, reduced the amount to R1,490 but that is still a high figure. We agree that the university must be properly run. The Minister may say now that without the assistance of an assistant or vice-rector the administration will suffer. We will have to agree to this appointment because of the representations made by him, but I want to ask him what about the University of Zululand and the University of the North? I notice from the figures given by the Deputy Minister in 1969 that the candidates who received matriculation exemption in Zululand and decided …

Order! That point is not under discussion.

Sir, the circumstances are the same. We have two other similar universities, and I want to know why, if it is necessary to appoint a vice-rector for this university, it is not necessary to appoint one for those two universities because their constitutions were all passed at the same time.

The point I want to make is that there are more students in those areas qualifying for university entrance than there are at Fort Hare. Then too Fort Hare has had many more years of experience of running a university than those two universities, and if it is necessary to appoint an additional assistant to the rector, one would have thought that it would be more necessary at these other two universities than at Fort Hare. I ask the Minister why it is not necessary to appoint an additional rector at those universities if it is so important to appoint one at this university. The vice-rector will be appointed by the council in terms of this Bill, with the approval of the Minister. Unfortunately the Minister appoints the council, so the vice-rector, we can take it, will be quite sure to be chosen by the Minister, and we can be pretty certain what his political persuasion is going to be. There is nothing in this Bill which prohibits the appointment of an African to that position, but bearing in mind the attitude of the hon. the Minister to Africans and Whites serving on the same council, it is a safe bet that the African will not be considered for appointment to this post. Sir, we do not contend that only an African should be appointed. There may not be a suitable one.

Why do you raise the point then?

We do not say that only an African should be appointed. There may not be one suitable for the post, but we say that if there is a suitable applicant with the necessary qualifications available, he should be appointed. The Minister cannot tell us that there are no Africans who will be suitable for an appointment of this nature, because he will remember that in Fort Hare’s heyday Prof. Matthews acted as the principal of that university. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is to appoint an African, if possible. The Minister asks why I raise this point. The point is that otherwise, how will they be trained to take over the administration of the university, which must ultimately happen if the Nationalist Party is sincere in its policy of separate development?

They are not sincere.

Sir, it is a sad fact that under the policy of this Government an African cannot advance to the top, or even to the second top position, in his own university and he is barred from the other universities. I want to know from the Minister, too, whether the Transkei Government and the Ciskeian Territorial Authority were consulted in this matter, and if so, what their reactions were. After all, this is a university which has to serve the people of those two authorities and I should like to know whether they were consulted on this issue.

*We voted against the principal Act when it was introduced here. We do not accept the main provisions of the Act, but in the interests of the Xhosa we must ensure that the administration of the university is as efficient as possible. Since the Minister has now explained to us that the appointment of the rector is necessary for the more efficient administration of the university, we will not stand in his way. We will not oppose the Bill, but I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his attitude towards the appointment of Bantu in this kind of post. This Government has so often changed its standpoint and policy and has made so many about-faces that they could easily do it in this case as well in the interests of both the White man and the Black man.

The hon. member for Transkei did in fact say at the end of his speech that the United Party supports this Bill, but this was in fact an about-turn on their part. The support given by him was given in a very half-hearted way. He put a number of questions here the answers to which emerge very clearly from the Minister’s speech and from the Bill itself, but what he actually intended doing was to make insinuations and sow suspicion. It was very clear from the entire spirit of this speech that this was a very halfhearted support of the Bill. In fact, the United Party has no record to be proud of as far as the history of the establishment and development of the universities for non-White ethnic groups is concerned.

Order! The hon. member may not hold a general discussion. We are dealing with the Bill now.

No, but I just want to remind the hon. members that they do not have a record to be proud of. But we are grateful to them now for giving their halfhearted support to this Bill. To me it is quite clear why the appointment of a vice-rector at this university has become necessary. The hon. member for Transkei asked why this was not initially introduced. It is very clear that it was not foreseen at that time. Now it has become clear that there is a great need for such an office. It can be argued on principle whether a university has any need at all for a vice-rector. It is not for this House to decide the principle of the matter. Some of our large White universities have one or more vice-rectors, while others have none. The fact of the matter is that the council and the rector of the university of Fort Hare have felt the need for the appointment of a vice-rector here. That is why this Bill is before the House today. Apart from the reasons mentioned by the hon. the Minister, I can myself see other reasons for its being necessary. At present it is the case that an acting rector can be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the council. Now, it could happen that the rector suddenly falls ill or is called away and then the procedure for appointing an acting rector is not such an easy one. It is also the case that at present provision is not made, in the existing legislation, for a deputy chairman of the senate. With this legislation for the appointment of a vice-rector, such a person will also of course act as deputy chairman and as chairman of the senate in the absence of the rector. Similarly there are other reasons as well.

It is necessary to point out that the task resting on the shoulders of the rector of the University of Fort Hare is a major and important one. It is a difficult task because pioneering work is being done here and because this university must make provision for a great nation which is in its developing stages and has a great need for leaders. This nation must be provided with leaders. This is an ambitious task. That is why one is grateful for its now being possible for that rector to receive assistance from a vice-rector, who can then take over some of his tasks.

I find it a great pleasure to support this Bill since that university must also make its contribution, not only in carrying out its primary task of guiding, training and providing the Xhosa people with leaders, but also because it can make a contribution towards solving our complicated problems in this country, particularly in regard to our relationships problems among the various peoples. We believe that this amendment Bill which makes provision for the appointment of a vice-rector will also contribute towards this university in future being able to accomplish its task with greater distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend opposing the Second Reading of this Bill. I must say I do not think all that much of the hon. the Minister’s explanation as to why it is necessary, so soon after the university had been given its full status, to have this new appointment. One of the reasons he gave was that the present rector has so much administrative work to do that it was necessary to appoint somebody else to have the personal contact with the students and to take this burden off his shoulders. The hon. member for Algoa simply said that it was now essential to have such a person. He did not give us any reasons at all why he thought this to be so. I wonder whether it is not a fact at Fort Hare, which has had a long and rather unhappy history of students’ unrest since it was set up, that one of the reasons has not been that there has been too much discipline imposed on students there. One of the conditions under which students are re-admitted at the beginning of the academic year, are that they must give an undertaking that they will devote themselves entirely to their studies and play no part in any activities outside purely academic work. All these, of course, are factors which might have added to the difficulties of the rector and it might well be that the hon. the Minister feels that he needs an additional disciplinarian to take charge of the students themselves.

I do not know whether it is true that at the University of Fort Hare students have to sign exactly the same undertaking that the students of the University of the North have to sign. However, I can only say that this is treating university students not even like school children, but on an even lower basis. These students have to sign an undertaking that they will devote themselves only to their studies and that they will participate in no extra-mural activities. They are told that if they do in any way occupy themselves with any activities outside of their academic work and purely university activities, they will be sent down and will not be re-admitted. I should like to know what White university would tolerate conditions like this for one moment. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he replies to this debate, would give us some indication as to whether or not it is his intention, in appointing the vice-rector, to tighten up even further on these extra-academic student activities.

For the rest, i.e. the purely administrative side, I have no objection to the appointment of the vice-rector. But I do think that everybody in this House will scrutinize the activities at this university with some considerable care to make sure that the new appointment is not simply an additional disciplinarian at the University of Fort Hare.

Mr. Speaker, allow me first of all to assure the hon. member for Transkei that I appreciate the co-operation coming from the Opposition so soon in connection with a Bill from our department, the Department of Bantu Education. I think everyone will agree with me that it augurs well for this Session if the Opposition supports me with the first Bill with which I come to this House in the year 1971. As there are other Bills coming, I say, it augurs well for this Session. [Interjections.]

I should like to reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Transkei. His first question was in regard to the ratio between teaching staff and students. The position is that the number of students per staff member is increasing. There is a slight improvement in the figures of 1970 as compared to that of 1969. In 1969 the ratio was five students to one member of the teaching staff. This figure increased to 5.7 students per member of the teaching staff in the subsequent year. I cannot supply the figures for 1971 as yet, because, as the hon. member will know, students are at present enrolling. Further applications are still coming in. I was informed about a fortnight ago by the Rector of the University of Fort Hare, when he was here in Cape Town, that they received many more applications this year than last year. The tempo of new applications for 1971 increased as compared to that of 1970. I take it that there is a good possibility that the figures for 1971 will again be better than those of 1970. But as I said on this very same matter when we dealt with this Bill in this House two years ago, we must accept that in small universities you always get this phenomenon that the ratio of students to teaching staff members will be low in the initial period. You only get a better ratio in later years when the number of students has increased.

The next question was why we did not make such provision when we introduced a Bill two years ago to make provision for a separate Act for the University of Fort Hare. I can only say that this is a gradual process. We need not do everything which may become necessary in due course right at the outset. We tried to let the universities function without a rector and a vice-rector.

In the case of the University of Fort Hare, which is one of the older universities, it became necessary. After we have gone into the matter properly we found it justified. I was asked: What about the other two universities which were mentioned? All I can say in regard to them is that so far it has not cropped up in their case. They have not yet considered asking for a vice-rector.

Then the hon. member asked me whether it would be possible for a Bantu person to advance—that was the word he used—to this post of vice-rector. My reply to that question is, with special stress on the word “advance”, yes. However, advance means starting from the bottom and progressing upwards. I wish to refer this hon. member to a certain section in the Transkei Constitution wherein we say that they should get their own people in their Civil Service, beginning from posts at the bottom advancing upwards to the higher posts. We also apply that principle with regard to the universities in the administrative as well as the teaching staffs. Then I may add, and that is in answer to a further question by the hon. member, that there are already 17 Bantu persons at Fort Hare at present who are lecturers, senior lecturers or professors. I do not have the figures available of the administrative posts, but I can assure the hon. member that there are already Bantu persons on the personnel of the Bantu universities. They are appointed wherever they can be appointed.

*The hon. member also asked me whether I had approached the authorities of the Ciskei and of the Transkei. The two Governments of the Ciskei and the Transkei are represented on the Advisory Council of the University of Fort Hare. The Advisory Council took part in the deliberations between the Council of the University and our Department. Through them there has therefore been contact with the authorities of the two territories. They also addressed a recommendation and a request to us in this connection.

The hon. member asked me what the position is with regard to Bantu staff, but I have already replied to this. Then I want to thank the hon. member for Algoa for the assistance he gave me. Although we do not seem to need much assistance against our friends on the other side today, all assistance is welcome.

†Now I want to refer to the hon. member for Houghton. It is a pity that whenever the hon. member for Houghton has something to say in regard to Bantu Affairs, she always does so from the angle of the persons who always cause trouble and strife.

I am very suspicious of your motives.

That is the trouble with the hon. member. She is always suspicious. If we could only get a positive approach from this hon. member, it would be much better for all of us in this House.

You never take my advice.

The hon. member asked me whether this appointment was in view of the desire to have one more disciplinarian at the university. My reply is “no, it is to get one more educationist at that university”. She also asked me a question in connection with the rules of admission. This is really not very relevant. As the vice-rector will be concerned with the rules of admission for students to the university, I can give the hon. member the assurance that all rules in regard to admission to universities and other matters of the universities, are matters which are considered by the council and the senate of every one of these universities as well as the rector and the vice-rector, for whom we are creating a post in the case of the University of Fort Hare, and I trust them fully in the handling of these matters. I do not want to say anything more in this regard and I think that should be ample assurance for the hon. member.

I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he has seen the letter which students of the University of the North have been asked to sign.

I am fully aware of the contents of this letter.

And you agree with them?

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As a result of general expansion in the Department’s activities and a rearrangement of administrative functions, it has become necessary to amend certain provisions of the Prisons Act, 1959. For example, it has come to light that the appointment and period of office of a member of a prison board was not defined clearly enough. Apart from this, no statutory provision existed for discharging a member of such a board if it were to appear during his period of office that he was no longer fit to hold office. In addition, the number of prisoners serving sentences of two years and more has increased to such an extent in recent years that it has become essential to decentralize prison boards and to ensure in that way that continuity is retained in respect of the prisoner and that individual treatment is applied more intensively. As a result of this, more chairmen have to be appointed, who, unfortunately, are not always available from the body of officers. On the other hand, there are a considerable number of nonofficial members of the boards who are in all respects fit to act as chairmen, chiefly because of their rich experience and worldly wisdom. The proposed amendment in clause 1 therefore seeks to:

1. (a) define the period of office and appointment of a member of a prison board more clearly, and also to grant the necessary sanction to discharge such a member in the event of his no longer being fit to hold office, and
2. (b) make it possible for non-official members of prison boards also to be appointed as chairmen of such boards.

It has also become evident that it is merely a waste of time and manpower to approach the Public Service Commission in cases where members of the Prison Service are retained in service after they have attained the age of retirement of 60 years or in cases where members may be retired on pension on the attainment of the age of 50 years. In both cases the decision of the Public Service Commission is a mere formality because the Commission is not in a position to determine whether a member’s services are necessary or superfluous, unless action is taken on the recommendation and motivation of the Commissioner of Prisons. The proposed amendment contained in clause 2 was discussed with all interested bodies and persons, including the Public Service Commission, which welcomes it, and this means that the Commissioner will now have the power to retain a member in service each year for a maximum period of three years after such a member has attained the age of 60 years, and to retire a member on pension after such a member has attained the age of 50 years.

It has also come to light that no prosecution can be instituted in terms of section 43 of the Prisons Act in cases where aid is given to a prisoner who escapes while he is on his way from one prison to another. The reason for this is that in terms of section 1 of the Act the existing definition of a “prison” does not include vehicles in which prisoners are transported. The proposed amendment contained in clause 3 seeks to remove this uncertainty.

It happens fairly often that persons, including and especially prisoners, divulge information about proposed escapes to the authorities, and because escapes and what they entail, involve the State in considerable expenditure and criticism, it is essential to make all possible attempts to combat them. As the position is at present, a reward may only be paid to a person who divulges information which may lead to and is instrumental in the arrest of an escaped prisoner. The proposed amendment contained in clause 4 will make it possible to pay compensation to informants who divulge information about planned escapes, and it will also serve as an incentive to bring planned escapes to the attention of the authorities without delay.

It has also become necessary to amend the punishments which are imposed on prisoners in respect of a contravention of the regulations. The proposed amendments contained in clause 5 (a) and (c) are merely grammatical and seek to eliminate any possibility of the proviso at the end of the subsection being overlooked. It has also become evident that the existing “rice-water” penal diet does not contain all the essential nutrients and that it may possibly be harmful to the prisoner’s health. In consultation with the Department of Health, a substitute penal diet, which is more balanced and has more nutritional value for the prisoner, has been made up.

It does not taste as good.

That is correct. As the proposed amendment in clause 5 (b) now reads, only the maximum period which may be imposed will be prescribed by law—this is as it appears in the Bill— while the way in which solitary confinement with dietary punishment is served, will be prescribed by regulation. At present, however, the Act makes provision for the way in which the sentence is to be served, and because the proposal contained in clause 5 (b) is therefore incomplete in my opinion, I may just mention that I shall move an amendment in the Committee Stage so as to provide that the way in which the dietary punishment is to be served, will also be prescribed by law. However, before a prisoner is subjected to a dietary punishment, the health officer first has to certify that it is or will not be harmful to the prisoner’s bodily or mental health. On the other hand, the automatic forfeiture of any remission of sentence is unreasonable and in reality a second sentence. It always involves a double punishment for the same offence, hence the proposed amendment contained in clause 5 (b).

As the position is at present, a prisoner may be freed on medical grounds if his life is endangered by further detention. In practice, however, it has been proved that district surgeons are hesitant to certify that continued detention in a prison is necessarily endangering a prisoner’s life, in view of the fact that such a prisoner can receive the same, and sometimes better, medical treatment in the prison than outside. This has resulted in a great deal of obscurity, because what does happen, is that physically the prisoner is in fact no longer able to commit any further crimes, is virtually a permanently bed-ridden patient, can perform no work and consequently merely costs the State money. The proposed amendment contained in clause 6 seeks to eliminate this obscurity and to place the emphasis more specifically on his physical condition rather than on the danger which continued detention holds for his life. And now, Sir, I have explained most of the principles.

Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an example of why it is sometimes necessary to have a White Paper printed together with the Bill, I think the hon. the Minister has demonstrated now that this is one such occasion. On the face of it, there are certain provisions of this Bill which, without any White Paper or other explanations, would seem objectionable. The hon. the Minister has motivated, for example, in regard to clause 1 the fact that, if in his opinion there are any good reasons to do so, a person appointed to a Prison Board can be dismissed from office during the course of the period for which he was appointed. A Prison Board, after all, only makes recommendations and does enquiries that the Commissioner wants them to do. They act purely in that capacity. On the face of it, this is a remarkable state of affairs. The hon. the Minister has indicated that this is now necessary in order to re-organize the question of Prison Boards. In the light of that, it is something at which we would now like to have another look and to discuss during the Committee Stage.

But I think that, where there is a major administrative rearrangement of this sort about to take place, and a Bill is introduced to deal with it, hon. Ministers owe it to the members of this House to produce a White Paper, explaining just what it is all about.

So far as clause 2 is concerned, obviously this follows on the amendment of the Public Service Pensions Act in 1970.

So far as clauses 3 and 4 are concerned, we regard these as a great improvement as the Act does not deal with persons trying to aid prisoners who escape whilst in custody and being removed from one place to another. The commissioner ought to be able to offer a reward in respect of a planned escape as well.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, the Minister has indicated that he will introduce amendments during the Committee Stage. It is quite clear from what the hon. the Minister has said, that great reforms are taking place in respect of spare diet and reduced diet, neither of which appear in the proposed section but are already in the original Act. I hope the hon. the Minister in his reply will give us an indication of what is going to replace what was spare diet and what was reduced diet. If the Minister does that, it will aid us considerably when we consider this matter in the Committee Stage. Prima facie this provides that not a judicial officer but a commissioned officer of the prison should have an increased jurisdiction in respect of punishment from six days to thirty days in respect of solitary confinement with spare diet, where the Act lays down the manner in which spare diet shall be administered. The hon. the Minister is changing this with what is called “dietary punishment”. As the Minister indicated, there are going to be changes in respect of the sort of diet that is imposed which will not affect the health of prisoners. But we should like to have some details in this respect and we are very pleased that the Minister has stated that these matters must be prescribed by law and that he is going to move an amendment to that effect. I hope the hon. the Minister when he replies will give us an indication of what the changes are that are about to take place, particularly in so far as spare diet and reduced diet are concerned.

We do not oppose the Bill at this stage but propose to examine further during the Committee Stage in the light of the important disclosures which the hon. the Minister has made this afternoon.

With reference to the principle contained in clause 1, the hon. member said that they would like an explanation in respect of the motive for the amendment. I think he will accept however, that since it is proposed to establish a more efficient system for dealing with prisoners, promoting a more efficient rehabilitation system, for example, what is stated here actually contains sufficient information to enable him, together with what he already ought to know, to endorse this amendment. Up to now we have had four prison boards. With a view to establishing a more efficient system, decentralization was then decided upon. In accordance with that principle, 22 such boards are functioning at present. In the course of a year a large number of cases come to the attention of these boards. For example, 41,867 such cases were investigated by those boards during the past financial year. As the hon. member knows, this is a case of prisoners sentenced to corrective training, from two to four years, for example, as well as prisoners who are generally serving sentences of longer than two years. The boards then issue a report about the adaptability, work capacity, gratuity and early discharge of these prisoners. It is therefore in the interest of the prisoners themselves that this amendment should be introduced.

Up to now an officer of the Prisons Service has acted as chairman of a prison board. This means that 22 such officers were involved in the activities of these boards on virtually a full-time basis, and they could consequently not perform their normal duties. Hence the amendment by which the Minister himself can, from time to time, designate a member of the prison board as chairman thereof. Such a person need not necessarily be an officer in the Prisons Service. This also creates the opportunity for the Minister to appoint persons who are not members of the Prisons Service, but who do nevertheless have expert knowledge about the rehabilitation of prisoners. Furthermore, here there is emphasis upon the ideal of concluding matters as speedily and efficiently as possible—for example the power being granted to the Minister to discharge members of the board who have shown themselves to be incompetent.

As far as clauses 3 and 4 are concerned, it is very clear to me that these clauses are only aimed at the promotion of a more efficient prison system, while clause 5, read in conjunction with the regulations, very clearly emphasizes that the interests of the prisoners are still being taken care of. That is why the existing regulations make provision for a medical examination before a prisoner receives a reduced diet, for compulsory exercise to be given to such a prisoner and for prohibiting his having to work. For my part the amendment in clause 5 originates solely out of the necessity of not making it easier for a prisoner in solitary confinement; and yet it is made possible for him to endure it, and at the same time it contains the principle of deterrence for those who, as was the case in America, wanted to try to start a revolution. Since a different diet is prescribed for solitary confinement, one surely cannot expect that when such a prisoner is served with Provita and caviar he will still enjoy the same number of days of solitary confinement. Hence the increased number of days.

As a whole, therefore, this merely promotes the interests of prisoners, in my opinion, and serves as a deterrent at the same time. We on this side consequently support this Bill.

The hon. the Minister will know that I take a considerable interest in the prison system in this country and that I am in favour of all manner of prison reform so as to bring South Africa’s prison system into line with the more modern practices in other countries. Certain improvements have certainly been introduced over the years, although I cannot say with any certainty that the administration inside the prisons has kept up with this spirit of reform which has been introduced by this hon. Minister and by the Commissioner of Prisons. This is something, Sir, which I will raise at a more opportune time.

As far as this Bill is concerned, I am not particularly concerned with Clause 1. The hon. member for Durban (North) has had some criticism to offer of the manner in which this has been presented. It is largely administrative as far as I am concerned and I am not particularly worried about it. Nor does Clause 2 worry me very much. I am not quite as sanguine as the hon. member for Durban (North) about Clauses 3 and 4. I realize that certain precautions have to be taken to give the authorities every aid in stopping escapes from prison. But Clause 4 rather worries me because I do not know just what care is going to be exercised in making quite sure that people are not encouraged to give information against other prisoners which may not be strictly accurate. It is very difficult to test the veracity of one man’s statement in prison against that of another prisoner, and all sorts of petty vendettas develop when men are confined together in prison. I hope that the utmost caution will be exercised by the authorities in prisons to ensure that people are not informing against other prisoners simply to get them into trouble. It is not something that happens seldom under the prison system, not only in this country but everywhere else in the world. I do therefore have that precautionary note to sound on Clause 4.

Clause 5, which I think is the most important clause in this Bill, changes the penalties for contraventions of prison regulations by prisoners. I am worried about solitary confinement in an isolation cell which under existing regulations is limited to six days with spare diet and to 15 days without spare diet but with or without light labour.

Ten days half diet.

Now, Sir, I see it is going to be solitary confinement in an isolation cell for a period not exceeding thirty days. That is a very long period for solitary confinement. A lot of study has been done on the effects on prisoners of solitary confinement, and I am rather worried that this is now being extended from six days with spare diet and 15 days with a certain form of labour to a maximum of 30 days and dietary punishment for any one of the periods prescribed by regulation. The hon. the Minister did say that he was going to amend this. In other words, it is not going to be left to regulations; there is going to be something laid down in the law.

That is right.

I am pleased to hear that. But I am still worried about the extension of solitary confinement to 30 days. That is a very heavy penalty indeed, and I do not believe that it should be extended to this lengthy period. With regard to the diet that the hon. the Minister talks about, I am glad to hear about the disappearance of this rice water diet which I think dates back to the early days of Union in South Africa, right to the very beginning. It is really a very outmoded form of punishment and I do not think that any modern penal system in the world uses rice water as a dietary punishment. Of course, rice water could only be given for a maximum of, I think, three days, and then there had to be one day of ordinary diet, then reverting again to three days on rice water. This new dietary punishment can now extend over the full period of thirty days’ solitary confinement.

No.

Well, it says “up to”.

It is only for a certain period; then the prisoner reverts again to full diet and then back again to half diet.

One does not know the details, but as the law reads at the moment it can be solitary confinement with dietary punishment for any one of the periods prescribed by regulation, not exceeding thirty days. I read it that it can certainly be up to 30 days, but I am glad to hear that it is going to be altered. Now, the Minister told us that the new diet which is going to be worked out would be more nutritious and better for the prisoner than rice water. What he has failed to tell us was something that Die Burger told us on the 3rd of this month, where it said—

I hope it will not be made so unpalatable that prisoners practically starve themselves to death.

It will be in its natural form.

What is “it”? The Minister says it will be in its natural form, but that can be practically anything. I would like him to give me some idea of what “it” is.

I will reply to it.

As I say, I am all for nutritious food being given to prisoners, but not in such a form as to make it completely inedible. I have those reservations about clause 5 and I am not saying now what I am going to do about clause 5, as I will decide in the Committee Stage whether I will vote for or against it, or whether I will move an amendment when I have seen what the Minister will put on the Order Paper by way of amendment. But I would like to say that I am glad about the amendment introduced in clause 6, which is certainly an improvement and affects the release of prisoners whose physical condition is such or, in the case of a woman, her advanced pregnancy is such, that early release and remission of sentence should be granted by the authorities. I am not going to oppose the Second Reading.

The hon. speaker who has just resumed her seat had problems with respect to clause 4, which provides that the Commissioner may pay monetary rewards to persons giving information relating to planned escape from custody by any prisoner. Her objection is that misuse could possibly be made of this concession by prisoners who have disputes among themselves. I can give her the assurance that the Commissioner of Prisons and his staff are most certainly ready for this type of thing, and it ought to be very clear that misuse of this provision will not be allowed. I may point out—it is interesting—that in the Budget provision was also made for compensation that can be paid in terms of such a section, and that the total compensation provided for is a mere R500. That was the position in respect of the 1970-’71 Budget.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, the question of solitary confinement, I should like to point out to the House that in the regulations of the Department adequate precautions are taken to ensure that people, for whom it would prove detrimental, are not locked up in isolation. That is why regulation 101 (2) provides that a prisoner shall not be subjected to solitary confinement with spare diet or reduced diet if the medical officer has certified that such solitary confinement and spare diet or reduced diet would be detrimental to such a prisoner’s physical or mental health. Certain definitions here will, of course, now also have to change, but it is clear that a person will be medically examined before undergoing this punishment in accordance with the requirements laid down in the minimum standard regulations published by the United Nations and approved in Geneva in 1955; and in terms of regulation 101 (3) such a prisoner is visited each day in prison and is also medically examined. I may also point out that persons who have to serve this kind of punishment are allowed to do exercises every day. This requirement of exercise is also included in regulation 101 (4) of the Department. Under the circumstances it is very clear that sufficient precautions have been taken to ensure that only persons who can physically and mentally endure the punishment will have it imposed upon them. I do not think the hon. member for Houghton has reason for concern.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (North) has indicated the attitude of those of us in the official Opposition, to the principal clauses which we have to deal with in this Bill. I should like merely to comment on two aspects of it, more particularly two aspects which were dealt with by the hon. member for Houghton. She dealt firstly with clause 4, where provision is made for a reward to be given to a person who gives information relating to a planned escape by any prisoner. The hon. member for Houghton felt that one must approach a clause of this kind with caution, because it might encourage prisoners to give information falsely against others in regard to a proposed escape. I do not share the apprehension on her part. Where people are incarcerated in a prison, there will always be those, whether one has provision for a monetary reward or not, who wish to curry favour with the warders and those in authority. It is inherent in the nature of such an institution that there is an inducement for persons who are prone to giving false information, to do so merely to improve their own position. That is inherent in the institution. In a prison that is properly administered by persons who have experience and know that this type of behaviour is prevalent, I do not think that we need be particularly concerned by a clause of this type.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, one must here hold a balance between two points of view. We are here dealing with a punishment which can be meted out to a prisoner for offending against the rules of the prison. One must approach this with a balance between two points of view. The one point of view is that we are dealing with a prison, not a five-star hotel. The point of view on the other end of the scale is that one simultaneously wants to be as humane in the administration in an institute of this kind as possible. Where the man or woman is there for the very purpose of suffering a punishment of incarceration, and that person nevertheless falls foul of the regulations, then that person can be punished in one of three ways, as I see it. Either you can inflict corporal punishment or confine that person to solitary confinement, or some type of dietary punishment can be imposed. I do not know of any other way in which a person can be punished, who is already subject to imprisonment as a punishment. The hon. member for Durban (North) raised the problems which the official Opposition has in regard to this provision. I do not think it serves any good purpose to enlarge at length on the goodness or badness of this particular clause, until we have heard what the hon. the Minister has to say in enlargement and amplification, not only of the amendments he proposes to introduce in this regard, but of the new approach that there is to the type of diet that is supplied to persons subjected to this form of punishment. Suffice to say then, Sir, that the matter can be dealt with properly and at length, as the hon. member for Durban (North) said earlier, at the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the hon. member for Zululand replied to the hon. member for Houghton on the question of the encouragement of prisoners to inform against each other, or to get each other into trouble. It is a fact that the department is very mindful of that. These days it does happen that one prisoner ranges himself against another. The department is mindful of that. Where a real escape is being planned the officials of the department will be ready and waiting to see whether the information was correct or not. If nothing happens, it was wrong information. In reality it is a very simple matter. I am thankful to be able to say that it appears as if these measures are being generally well received with certain provisos.

I just want to reply to the hon. member for Durban (North) in connection with clause 1. In respect of clause 1 the department is actually saddled with a difficulty in more respects than one. In the first place, in the Act as it now stands provision is made for the appointment of board members. There is no provision for the retirement of board members if they were to become ill. In general we are dealing with oldish people. They are mostly pensioners, ex-officials of the department itself, ex-officials of the Department of Justice, ex-magistrates, etc. These are people who could easily reach a stage where they can no longer render service. That is the reason why we now want the power to be able to retire them as well. In the past we did not have this power. This clause therefore deals purely with administrative powers.

As the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) indicated, we are decentralizing and therefore need more chairmen. There are not always sufficient chairmen available in the corps. Here and there we have many experienced and competent people who can be appointed as chairmen. That is why we want these powers. We decentralized because the boards, as they existed previously, could not continually remain in touch with their—one could almost call them patients. As things now stand, with the larger centres throughout the country, the board members can continually remain in touch with the people. That is the whole intention of clause 1.

As far as I can remember nothing was said about clause 2. Clause 3 appears to meet with approval and I have already replied on clause 4.

As far as clause 5 is concerned, I can only say that one must go back to the existing Act and read them in conjunction. The existing Act lays down the length of dietary punishment. As the hon. member for Houghton indicated, this may not last for longer than six days. This period must also be interrupted by one day upon full diet. In the existing Act there is, however, no description of what the diet must be. It is only defined as a spare diet. I felt that it would be better if we also laid down, in the Act, what the diet should be. The existing Act, therefore, lays down the duration of the punishment and how it must be served, but there is no mention of what the diet must be. With this amendment I therefore want to adjust the Act in such a way that the duration is prescribed, that the manner of serving the punishment is also prescribed, and that the diet itself should be as prescribed in the regulations in the past. I may now tell hon. members who are interested that the present prescribed diet consists of eight ounces of rice water which is just boiled. The rice water is boiled in a certain quantity of water and then distributed in two portions, one in the morning and one at night. I concede that this is a very spare diet. In just a moment I shall state precisely what the diet’s nutritional value is. The newly proposed diet will consist of seven ounces of properly cooked coarse mealie-meal, without salt, twice daily. It will therefore be a kind of porridge. Where a prisoner previously received eight ounces of rice water per day, he now gets 14 ounces of mealie-meal.

What about proteins and so on?

In just a moment I shall state what its nutritional value is. Apart from this he will also receive, once per day, half an ounce of protein soup cooked in a pint of water. I just want to compare the nutritional value of the two. I shall state the nutritional value of the old diet first and then compare it with the new diet. The old diet contained 824 calories as against 1,491 in the new diet. This means that there are nearly twice as many calories in the new diet. The old diet contained 15.3 grams of proteins by comparison with 36.8 grams in the new diet. This means that there is more than twice the amount of protein in the new diet. The previous diet contained .9 grams of fat, as against 12.1 grams in the new diet. This means that there is almost 13 times as much fat in the new diet. The old diet contained 183.4 grams of carbohydrates, while the new diet contains 307 grams. The calcium content of the old diet was 24.4 milligrams as against 47.12 milligrams in the new diet. This means that there is almost twice as much calcium in the new diet. The old diet contained 213.3 milligrams of phosphorus as against the 770.4 in the new diet. The old diet contained 1.8 milligrams of iron by comparison with 9.45 milligrams in the new diet. The old diet contained no vitamin A, while the new diet contains 71.0 international units. The old diet contained .16 milligrams of thiamine as against 1.49 milligrams in the new diet. The amount of riboflavin— something I myself use and pay a great deal for—in the old diet was .07 milligrams as against .78 milligrams in the new diet. The old diet contained 3.6 milligrams of nicotinic acid as against 6.44 milligrams in the new diet. And finally, the old diet contained no vitamin C, as against 28.4 milligrams in the new diet. This means, in other words, that it is a very much better diet.

Why not put any salt in it? That does not cost much.

I hope to get all these amendments printed on the Order Paper. I just want to give the hon. member more or less of an idea of how it will be done. Supposing a person gets a sentence of 15 days with dietary punishment. This would mean that for the first seven days he will be placed on this diet. For the next three days he will get a reduced diet which is half his normal diet. Thereafter he will be placed on full diet for two days, and then he will be placed on a spare diet again for three days. I hope that all this information will be published on the Order Paner so that there is enough time for hon. members to see it.

With what I have now said here, I have dealt with just about all the points that hon. members raised. I want to say thank you once again for the measure of support I have received. I hope hon. members will be equally helpful in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as appears from the long title and clause 1 of this amending Bill, the proposed amendment is not really a complicated one, but because it has a history attached to it, I want to explain it in detail in order to obviate any possible misunderstanding which may arise. As hon. members are aware, the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945 (Act No. 38 of 1945), contains a list of matters which may in terms of section 13 (1) of the Act be entrusted to a province by the State President by proclamation and with the concurrence of the executive committee of that province. The provinces are then authorized to legislate in respect of those matters. This list may be supplemented or amended at the request of the provinces.

In 1964 the province of Natal requested that it be entrusted with the establishment of and control over public resorts. The request was referred to the other provinces, which supported it. The matter was also referred to interested State Departments, and legislation was prepared to provide for the establishment of and control over public resorts being entrusted to provinces, by the insertion of a new paragraph 24 in the Second Schedule. The Department of Tourism, however, requested that the draft Bill be amended to ensure that the power and control to be obtained by the provincial authorities would be exercised only in consultation with the Department of Tourism, or that the exercise thereof would be subject to any standards or other requirements which that Department might impose in this connection. Subsequently, in September, 1966. the matter was discussed by the Minister of Planning, the Minister of Tourism and the Administrators. An amended draft was prepared and submitted to the provinces, which proposed further amendments, which were apparently acceptable to all. At that stage it appeared that the matter had to a large extent crystallized out, and the amending legislation was then proceeded with and embodied in the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1967 (Act No. 45 of 1967), as paragraph 24 of the Second Schedule.

Natal and Transvaal requested that, after the coming into operation of the said amending Act, a proclamation be issued, to make the relevant matter applicable in those provinces, and this was done. The Cape Province and the Orange Free State also asked for it initially, but before it could be arranged, they requested that it be cancelled after having heard of the problems which I shall mention further on. It is also unlikely that the latter two provinces will again apply for an entrustment of this nature as long as the present position continues. The problems to which I have referred, arose when Natal obtained a legal opinion from its own legal advisers, from which it appeared that as from the date of the promulgated entrustment to that province all regulations which had before that date existed with regard to public resorts would be invalid because they did not comply with the proviso to the statutory provision, namely that they should have been issued in consultation with the Departments of Tourism and Sport and Recreation. The matter was then referred to the Government Law Advisers, who initially agreed with the Natal legal advisers, but subsequently expressed the opinion that the regulations would remain valid until a court decided otherwise or until the issue was placed beyond all doubt by legislation. They also indicated that the State President was not authorized to withdraw the proclamations which entrusted the powers concerned to the provinces of Transvaal and Natal. The Cape Province and Natal in particular were strongly opposed to the request by the Department of Tourism to have a say in the framing of the regulations, which they regarded as a curtailment of the powers conferred upon them by section 13 (2) of the principal Act.

During discussions between the Minister of Tourism and the Administrators in Durban in September, 1969, the former intimated that he was prepared to recommend that the proviso be deleted. The four provinces in their turn undertook to consult with the Departments of Tourism and Sport and Recreation in all matters affecting the establishment of and control over public resorts. They should, however, not be restricted as is at present done by the proviso to paragraph 24 of the Second Schedule of the principal Act.

This is the position, and in the proposed amending Bill the matter is being rectified. This should give complete satisfaction. In the light of the outstanding and appreciated services rendered by the various provinces to the country in connection with the establishment and development of public holiday resorts and similar amenities, I am quite confident that this amending Bill will receive the support of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, may I utilize this opportunity at the outset to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his appointment to his present position in the Cabinet and on his handling of this his first measure before this House. With that is also coupled our congratulations on his recovery in health. We hope that that recovery will continue and become better as time goes on. I am sure he will also appreciate that I do not couple with those hopes, the hope that he will be in office as Minister for a long period of time.

This measure before us, which the hon. the Minister lucidly explained to us, deals with provincial matters. It is also fitting that the hon. the Minister, having relinquished the post of Administrator in Natal, where he has been under the influence of a United Party Executive Committee, should in the first measure which he presents to this House, be restoring some powers which were taken away from the Provincial Councils. In this case it is the power of control of resorts, as the hon. the Minister has explained. It places unfettered control in the hands of the provinces, over and above the powers which they obviously exercise of consultation with the State Departments which might be concerned. In so far as we are expecting this to be a forerunner of similar thinking on the part of the Government under the guidance of the hon. the Minister, we welcome this measure and we will support it. We are able today, on the first occasion that the hon. the Minister is dealing with a matter under his portfolio, to discuss an issue with which we are in full agreement. No doubt, more contentious days between the hon. the Minister and myself lie ahead.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Although various sections of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963, are involved in the proposed amendments, by and large only two matters are concerned here. In the first place, the position of Ministers, other than the Chief Minister, is being affected as far as their appointment and removal are concerned. At present the Chief Minister and the other Ministers are elected by secret ballot by the members of the Legislative Assembly from among their number. Now, however, the Legislative Assembly has requested the amendment of the Constitution Act so as to leave the appointment of Ministers in the hands of the leader of the majority party in the Legislative Assembly. The motive for the request is obvious, i.e. that the leader of the majority party, who will consequently be the Chief Minister in practice, will have to account to his people for his administration. Therefore he himself should choose the Ministers who are to assist him; otherwise the position may arise that the Legislative Assembly may elect one or two Ministers with whom the Chief Minister may not be able to get on and who may, in fact, not be at all favourably disposed towards him, while he, the Chief Minister, is held responsible for their actions.

Therefore clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend section 12 of the Transkei Constitution Act so as to provide that whereas the Chief Minister will be elected by secret ballot, he is to appoint the other Ministers —there are five altogether—within seven days after his election. If, however, the Chief Minister wants to remove a Minister for reasons he regards as sound and cogent, he has to submit, in terms of the proposed new paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Transkei Constitution Act, as contained in clause 7 of the Bill, a petition to the State President, who may if he deems fit, accede to any such petition.

These are the essential changes envisaged in respect of Ministers, and clauses 2. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Bill merely provide for incidental matters. Hon. members will see from sub-section (2) of clause 1, however, that serving Ministers will continue to hold office as though they were appointed by the Chief Minister in terms of the new proposals.

The second matter which is being affected by the proposed amendments, is the question of chiefs in the Legislative Assembly. When the Transkei Constitution Act was promulgated in 1963, provision was merely made for general representation of paramount chiefs and chiefs in the Legislative Assembly, i.e. the four paramount chiefs and the sixty chiefs who held office in the various areas at that time. As a result of the increase in the number of chiefs in the various regions, the Constitution Act was amended in 1967 so as to provide that every district in which there were chiefs, would be represented by a prescribed number of chiefs and where there were more than the prescribed number of chiefs in any district, they had to hold an election among themselves in order to determine who would serve in the Legislative Assembly. At that time there were no chiefs in the district of Kentani, but in the meantime four chieftanships have been created in that district, and a request has been submitted by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei for provision to be made to have Kentani represented by one chief in the Legislative Assembly. This means that the number of chiefs in the Legislative Assembly increases by one. This request is being carried into effect by means of the proposed amendments contained in clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill.

It is common knowledge that it is the policy of this side of the House to develop the reserves economically and politically. What we are opposed to, however, is the Government’s policy of political development leading to eventual sovereign independence. Consequently, we voted against the principal Act, inter alia, because it contained the symbols of sovereignity. Prior to the election of 1948, Gen. Smuts announced that he intended changing the regulations of the General Council of the Transkei in such a way that the Bantu themselves could obtain administrative rights.

So, eventually a state within a state!

His aim was to give the Xhosa themselves executive rights in the Bunga, as it was known.

Order! Is the hon. member not going back too far now?

I am just dealing with the policy in respect of the Executive and how members of the Executive were to be elected.

The people rejected that in 1948.

It is a pity the people did not reject you in 1948.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions governing the election and dismissal of members of the Executive, which term I prefer to “Cabinet”, could have been part of the United Party’s proposed communal council under our race federation plan. I am talking about the provisions governing the election under the law as it stands at the present moment, although I do not say that they would necessarily have been so. I say that they could have been. This system of election as contained in the Transkei Constitution Act at present could have been part of our race federation plan. In principle, Sir, we had no objection to that form of selection of the Executive because it was giving the Assembly itself the right to select it. Then also the Executive could not be removed without the consent of the Assembly. We have an example of this form of government in our own institutions. The Executive Council of the Provincial Council for instance is elected by the members of the Council itself and the Executive members cannot be dismissed by the Administrator who is the equivalent of the Chief Minister of the Transkei.

Sir, the form of selection provided for in the Transkei Constitution was in fact the form which has become general in all our local bodies. City councils elect their committees and executives. The mayors do not choose them nor do they sack them. It was a form of selection which the country understood, and the Government itself must have thought that that method was proper and best when they passed the Transkei Constitution Act. Otherwise they would not have legislated in that manner. The then Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, told this House that the Transkei Territorial Authority had itself drafted the Constitution; that they had consulted with him and that he had approved of it. Therefore he must have considered that form of selection and dismissal advisable. Sir, when the Coloured Council constitution was passed by this House, provision was also made for the election of the Cabinet in the Coloured Council. I say therefore that this is a method which the country has come to accept.

The reasons which the hon. the Deputy Minister has given for wanting to make a change are not sufficient, I submit; they are not sufficient at all. The objections to the method which he mentioned today could have been thought of at the time. Why was provision specially made for election? The hon. the Deputy Minister now says that the Chief Minister must have a Cabinet consisting of members who are prepared to work with him, that he must not be embarrassed by them and that the Assembly may elect a Minister who is hostile towards the Chief Minister. Therefore the Chief Minister should be allowed to sack him. But, Sir, if the Assembly is run on a party basis, then surely the Chief Minister will have the majority of the members in the Assembly and they will elect the Ministers whom he chooses, as has in fact happened. If on the other hand the Assembly is not elected on a party basis and the Assembly chooses a Chief Minister and then chooses ministers to work with him, I submit it is only right that the Assembly should be able to dismiss a Minister of whom they disapprove. The Chief Minister should not have the right to dismiss a Minister chosen by the Assembly. It is only right that the Assembly should have the Ministers whom they have chosen because the Ministers are in fact the link between the Executive and the Assembly. We have a very shrewd idea, of course, why this amendment is being asked for now. It is because of certain difficulties being experienced between the present Chief Minister of the Transkei and one of his Ministers. But we do not think that a Constitution should be changed to solve the problems of a particular Minister. We will run into difficulties and endless troubles if we try to change the Constitution to meet the problems of various Chief Ministers.

Sir, section 11 of the Transkei Constitution Act provides that questions arising in the Cabinet shall be determined by a majority vote and a provision of this nature is of no force and effect if a member knows that the Chief Minister can dismiss him if he disagrees with his point of view. I submit that this provision that differences of opinion in the Cabinet will be solved by voting will be of no force and effect because a Minister will know that if he disagrees with his Chief Minister he will simply be dismissed. To change the method of selecting the executive as is now proposed does of course fit into the Government’s way of thinking. This is a natural course of political development towards complete and sovereign independence. This method of choosing and dismissing the executive is in line with constitutional development to sovereign independence, and as our party, and I am certain the majority of citizens of the country, are absolutely and unequivocally opposed to this idea of the Nationalist Party, we will not support any measure which may give the impression that the United Party is prepared to go along in that direction, and we shall vote against the Bill.

The hon. member for Transkei made a long speech in connection with the historic background of the Transkei Constitution and in addition to that he indulged in much speculation as to what the underlying motive of this legislation was, and so forth. He tried to compare it with the provincial system. My attitude is that one cannot try to compare this legislation with the provincial system, because there is no comparison to be drawn, because the two cannot be compared and because no reconcilable comparison exists. When one says that a provincial council and the members of an executive committee are elected for a period of five years and that they cannot be dismissed by the Administrator or by anybody else, then it is a fact. To my mind we should rather view the development and the direction in the context of the self-government and the sovereignty mentioned by the hon. member. And that is what one is dealing with here and what one is going to deal with, is a self-governing, independent government in the Transkei; and the development there is more in the direction of a central government as we know in this House, too, and in terms of which it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister to constitute his Cabinet. For that reason I see that what is in fact happening here, is that this sovereignty the hon. member is talking about is developing and is taking shape. All that is at issue here, is the principle attached to the appointment and dismissal of their other Ministers. I think that the legislation as it stands, particularly in view of the fact that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei has no objection to it, is the correct approach, that this will take them further along the road towards independent government and that what is being strived at here, is the modern democratic system of government.

I want to make the statement that a secret ballot of Cabinet members must definitely be an unsatisfactory thing for the Chief Minister in many respects because, in the first place, he finds himself in the position that he has inherited a Cabinet, a Cabinet which may, in his opinion, possibly be a great deal less effective, also bearing in mind that a party system may possibly develop there in due course. And, Mr. Speaker, I can imagine that at such a secret ballot the Chief Minister may be left with members of a Cabinet drawn from the ranks of the Opposition. I can image that we would have nothing but chaos if this should happen in this House. This is particularly the case in view of the present Opposition we are dealing with. I want to make the statement that the Chief Minister would like to make his appointments from the ranks of Ministers and people whom he can trust, people whom he, according to their capabilities, regards as suitable for the particular office and who will be able to give effect to those policies which he adheres to and is trying to implement. After all, he is the person who occupies the responsible position as head of that government and who is responsible to the country for all that has to be done.

There is only one aspect in clause 7 which is not quite clear to me. This clause lays down the manner in which the other Ministers may be appointed. They are appointed by the Chief Minister and the clause lays down the manner in which they will be dismissed. The position which may result from this, is that where a new Chief Minister is appointed, he may eventually be left with a Cabinet he did not appoint, a Cabinet he will be forced to retain for the duration of that Legislative Assembly. This may create an anomaly since a newly appointed Chief Minister will be at the head of a Cabinet the appointment of which he was neither accountable nor responsible for, but that he will nevertheless have to bear responsibility for the carrying into effect of all powers and all policies they may envisage in this connection.

Otherwise I regard this legislation as being of a particularly progressive nature. I gladly give it my support.

Mr. Speaker, legislation dealing with the Transkei which we’ve had from time to time in the past can be taken to deal with two aspects in connection with the development of that territory. One is the physical development, i.e. economic, agricultural, industrial development, and so forth. Generally it covers the broad lines of industrial development. The other is the political development. This Bill which we have in front of us today seems to me deals purely with political development. It is one of a number of measures which we’ve had and no doubt it is one of a large number that we will still get. Probably in no sphere of legislation does the Government rely more on the philosophy of the inevitability of gradualness, as the old law has it, than it does in regard to these matters where the non-Whites are concerned. Here I think of the Group Areas Act and similar legislation which has been before this House year after year, involving little changes and steps in this direction, little changes made here and there, further little powers taken, and so forth.

I see this Bill as one within that pattern. It is political legislation in a pattern aimed, as the hon. member for Transkei said, at ultimately getting independence for sovereign Bantu states in South Africa, to which we are completely opposed. In passing, with particular relevance to the Bill we have before us, I would like to say that I have recently had a very interesting conversation with an hon. member on the other side, who has come back again to the old, time-honoured story that we should not be too concerned with this kind of thing because they were not going to give these states independence. That is non-sense. The time will come when it will be quite clear that the legislation is going in the direction of independence. That is the time when the rank and file of the members of Parliament on that side of the House will make their voices heard in no uncertain manner. I want to say that a lot of the words used at the present time are very misleading. We have so much terminology. We hear so many words about self-government. Self-government does not mean independence.

Self-determination.

We hear about self-determination, for which I thank the hon. Chief Whip on the other side, and other terms. That does not mean independence. All these terms, somewhere or other, have their limitations. There is no dictionary of meanings to guide us in our debates on these measures. Various members use different words with their own private meanings, which mean what they want it to mean. It has the Alice in Wonderland touch about it. The hon. member who just sat down used language, which, if taken at face value, was clear in its implications that this Bill was a step in the direction of independence. He made that absolutely clear. The Deputy Minister did not do that. He is going along the line of gradualness, of little step by little step, but this is one of the little steps.

Until the ultimate end is reached.

The hon. Chief Whip on the other side says: “Until the ultimate end is reached”. Now even the end is being qualified by using the word “ultimate”. One does not have an end, but an ultimate end. By and by, no doubt, there will be the end to the ultimate end.

It is not an approximate end, but an ultimate end.

Mr. Speaker, will it then be right to say that, with regard to this type of legislation, we have the penultimate end, then we have the ultimate end and finally we have the end?

And then we have the end of the Nationalist Party.

That, of course, is the hope of salvation for South Africa, of which, I am very pleased to say, the star is now rising brightly, namely, that, long before the penultimate end there will be the unqualified end of the Nationalist Government. That is the hope for South Africa.

With regard to this particular measure, we say that this is one of those small steps towards independence. This provision gives the Chief Minister of the Transkei the power to choose his own Cabinet Ministers, as my hon. friend over there called them, but he has not got the power to sack them. He has here been given the power to hire but not to fire. When one thinks about that for a moment or two, it is very interesting because this measure is not a measure from the Transkei. May I say that we agree with my hon. friend from the Transkei. We have no doubt whatever that the Government is coming to the aid of the Chief Minister of the Transkei, who finds himself in difficulties with one of his own Cabinet Ministers. So he preaches what is a very good principle of legislation, namely that we should not pass legislation to meet hard cases. We should be very careful indeed when we do that. When we get the hard case here or there, we should be very careful about passing legislation to deal with that hard case. One may find another hard case that operates from another direction later on. Then what does one do? Here we are then in the position that the Chief Minister by this Bill is given the power by the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to hire, but not to fire, his Cabinet Ministers. If, in terms of this Bill, the Chief Minister of the Transkei was to go to the Government, which would be the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, and say to him that he wants to fire Mr. XYZ, one of his Ministers, for such and such a purpose, the hon. the Minister for Bantu Administration and Development would be hard put to refuse that request. Indeed, Sir, this is one of the cases where the whip is being put in the hands of the Chief Minister of the Transkei, as it was under the legislation passed during the time of the late Dr. Verwoerd which dealt with educational matters. The hon. the Minister may think he is keeping the whip hand. But this is what we have warned him about from this side. Every time that the Chief Minister of the Transkei comes to him and wants to sack a Minister, the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will not be able to resist that. He will have to agree. I repeat, he will have to agree. The law makes it look as though he has the right of veto. He does not have any choice in the matter. He will accept what the Chief Minister of the Transkei brings to him, because the Chief Minister then will have a vacancy and he will fill it by one of his own choice in the same way as the Prime Minister here in this Parliament will fill a vacancy in the Cabinet.

Of his own choice.

Yes, of course, he fills it of his own choice. The hon. member opposite thinks that he influences the hon. the Prime Minister in filling vacancies in the Cabinet!

Let us recognize that this is the kernel of the matter that we have before us. Therefore we ask ourselves does this then stand alone, unassociated with difficulties which the present Chief Minister is in at this moment where the Government is trying to help him out of that difficulty? Is that a good principle for us to adopt in our legislation? Is it in fact not just a small step, but a step in the direction which is becoming so clear, of the Government putting forward legislation which in the penultimate ultimate end, will lead to independence if the Government can get it that far?

We oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat is seeing spectres again, just as the United Party is always doing.

I should just like to draw hon. members’ attention to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in 1963 when he opposed the First Reading of the Transkei Constitution Act. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said the following—

But read a little further.

In fact, we on this side of the House believe that it is right and proper that the Bantu in the various provinces should have control of those affairs which affect them more intimately.

But what did I say about the pattern?

At the time, during the discussion of the Transkei Constitution Act, the United Party agreed in principle that the various Bantu peoples should have control over their own areas. Why is the United Party now opposed to the Chief Minister having the prerogative to appoint his own Ministers? The position is that the United Party wants to place obstacles in the way of the relationships between the Chief Minister and his Minister’s whom he nominates functioning smoothly. It is not a question of their being so worked up at this stage about the Transkei eventually becoming independent; it is a question of their wanting to cause friction between the Chief Minister and his Ministers.

That is why they are opposing this Bill today, so that friction can develop and they can say to the outside world: This is what the National Party is doing, and look at all the things that are going wrong there in the Transkei. We know the United Party, we know their subtle politics, we know their suspicion-mongering. In this case, where the Chief Minister will have the prerogative to appoint his own Ministers and by so doing will facilitate the smooth functioning of the Transkeian Government, I cannot see why the United Party should oppose it. But they are opposing it not in the interests of the Transkei, but in their own interests. That is why I believe that this proposed amendment of the Transkei Constitution Act will eventually contribute to the smooth functioning of the constitution of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the hon. member for Aliwal, I want to take up an interjection which I thought I heard coming from the hon. member for Brits. As I understood the interjection of the hon. member for Brits he said, “a state within a state” and I understood that he was describing the ultimate position under their policy.

I was not referring to our policy, but to the Smuts policy.

Are you a follower of Smuts now?

It will not be a state within a state, because the ultimate end of our policy is absolute independence.

The hon. member has made it clear now, but I understood him to indicate that the description “a state within a state” applied to some position along the Nationalist Party road. I thought he was describing it as the ultimate position; but perhaps I was correct in thinking that he was describing it as the present position there. He seems to like the description “state within a state” less and less the more he thinks about it. This hardly surprises one, because we had this concept bandied about some time ago in another connection. On this question I would like to mention one other thing. There was a time when we used to hear from the opposite side of their ultimate vision in regard to the various peoples here. Sometimes it was described as a commonwealth, but then they became disenchanted with “commonwealth”. Sometimes it was described as a confederation, but then the former member for Kempton Park, who is now an hon. Judge of the Supreme Court, left this House and we have heard very little about that ever since. We are indeed hoping that hon. members opposite will give us their great pattern of development with the vision how these pieces will fall into place. It seems as if we will have to wait to hear a clear statement of their policy.

Under which clause do you find that?

I now want to turn to the hon. member for Aliwal. He quoted virtually a clause or two from a speech which was made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition when he opposed the First Reading of the Transkei Constitution Bill in 1963. The passage he quoted made it quite plain that this side of the House did stand for a large measure of control over their own affairs and indeed control of the matters intimately concerning them in terms of our policy for the Bantu people. It is a far cry to assume from that statement that we will support this measure. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition made it clear in that speech, which the hon. member for Aliwal mentioned, that we were opposing the Transkei Constitution Bill of 1963, because it was part of a pattern which took these parts of South Africa to total sovereign independence. From that we have never deviated. Nor have we deviated from our viewpoint that there must be a large amount of self-administration for the Bantu people. However, seeing that we again find that this is a step on the road to total sovereign independence or part of the pattern in that direction, we consider it necessary to oppose the measure.

Where do you read that in the Bill?

The hon. member asks where we read that in the Bill. It is quite clear that this is a development of the nature which ultimately ends in total sovereign independence. It is quite plain that the hon. the Prime Minister has invited these Bantu authorities to come and seek total independence from the Government within a very few years indeed. But apparently this is not in accordance with the desires of the hon. member for Aliwal. He appears to regret the advent of their sovereign independence.

What gives you that idea?

From the very fact that the hon. member asks why we think this is a move in that direction. Just to clear up completely what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in this debate in 1963 on the Transkei Constitution Bill and in order to put the quotation of the hon. member for Aliwal in the right perspective, I would like to read what my hon. leader said and said very clearly right at the outset of his speech. He said the following in Hansard, Vol. V, col. 282 on the 28th January, 1963:

Within seven years we have arrived at the position where this is more than proved to have been a correct forecast. At the time of the Republican Referendum, or thereabouts, there was talk of independence in perhaps 1,000 years for these reserves. Now, apparently, we can expect independence for these territories within the lifetime of this Parliament.

On application.

Yes, on application. On demand, almost, although it was made clear that there might be a period of negotiation. But what a far cry that is from what hon. members opposite told members of the public at the time of the Republican Referendum and afterwards, namely that this could wait for 1,000 years.

The other point I wish to make is that the hon. the Deputy Minister told this House in introducing this measure that a request for this amendment had come from the Executive Committee of the Transkei Government, in other words, the Cabinet. He did not indicate to this House that the request had come from the Legislative Assembly as a whole or from the majority of the members thereof. I would be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister would confirm that in fact there has been no request from that Legislative Assembly.

Do you say that in regard to both matters?

No, I understood it to relate to this question of the appointment of Ministers in the government. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. the Deputy Minister and if I did this point naturally falls away. As I understood it, however, the request had come from the Executive Committee and not from the body as a whole.

So, to conclude, we state quite unequivocally that we see this as a part of the pattern and a further step on the road which we believe is disastrous for South Africa. We believe it is disastrous not only for all of us in this House, but also for all the population groups in South Africa. We also believe it is equally disastrous for the Bantu people of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was obviously stating the standpoint of the United Party, i.e. that they see in this measure at present before the House the road to independence for the Transkeian people. Let us inform the hon. member that if he sees this measure before the House as leading to the road towards full independence for the Transkei, he is not wrong if he does so. I do not think it is wrong to state again today that the United Party is now trying from this specific measure to bring the entire principle of independence for the Bantu homelands to the fore, where we are dealing with a request from the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei, in an attempt to make political gain here. I want to state categorically, as the hon. the Prime Minister also did, that there is no obstacle in the way of any Bantu people in South Africa coming to ask for full independence. This same United Party waxed eloquent and said that not one of those Bantu nations had asked for independence. But here we now have an example of how the Legislative Assembly is asking to be led along that road when they want the Chief Minister to appoint his own ministers. I find it unthinkable that it can now be argued that provision should have been made for the Chief Minister to be able to appoint his own ministers in 1963, when the Constitution of the Transkei was laid down. The National Party has always said that the Bantu nations will be led to independence. This was a step which was a practical one at that stage. What was preferred at that stage was that the Legislative Assembly should be able to choose the Ministers. We must know that that population must also be trained in that direction. Now that this nation has reached the stage where a Chief Minister may appoint his own cabinet, which is comparable with the situation we have in this House, the United Party is objecting to this merely on the grounds that it is based on the road to independence. But the United Party also said that the Bantu reserves could themselves administer certain matters, and they themselves compared it to the provincial level. I want to leave it at that, but I would just like to remind hon. members of the fact that the United Party maintains that the Bantu may themselves control certain matters up to a level which may be compared to that of the provincial.

I think that in this Bill we are dealing with two matters only. It deals with the Chief Minister being able to appoint his cabinet, and that unlike the situation in the past, he may even bring a petition to the State President now asking for the removal of certain ministers, and in the second place, the expansion of the Chiefs’ representation in the Legislative Assembly. That is all it deals with. I do not think that any member in this House can have any objection to a trained Chief Minister being competent to appoint his own cabinet. Consequently the entire argument of the opposite side is based on ideology and not so much on the Bill before the House. That is why I cannot understand why we have to debate the ideology attached to the whole concept again at this stage. Let us confine ourselves to the Bill as we have it before us. No person with common sense can have any objection to that.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Christiana made a few points, with which I shall deal, but first I just want to refer to one of the preceding speeches, in which an hon. member stated that we were not interested in the progress of the Transkei, but that we were merely interested in the progress of the United Party. We are allegedly condemning this legislation, not on the grounds of what it will mean for the Transkei, but on the grounds of what it will mean for us as a party. I just want to tell the hon. member that he is of course wrong, as usual. We are judging the legislation in the light of the best interests of South Africa. If we happen to be of the opinion that this Bill will not be in the best interests of our country, then we believe that we must oppose it.

The hon. member for Christiana was in complete agreement with us when he stated that the opposition of the United Party is aimed at the question of the pattern, of which this Bill is only a part. The Constitution of a nation is not merely an ordinary law. It is a law which contains far more than, for argument’s sake, merely an administrative machine. It breathes a specific spirit. The development of a Constitution must be seen in particular against the background of the promises it holds for the people it deals with. This Constitution which is being given to the Transkei, and which my Nationalist friends waxed so very eloquent about, is one which holds a specific promise for the Bantu of the Transkei. That promise of course centres around the principle of independence, a term which has now become “self-determination” which of course does not mean “independence”. Those are terms one must think about.

I want to raise a second point. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will agree with me. As the matter stands here, it does not merely deal with the way in which a Bill will be piloted through, a minister chosen, but there is a specific symbolism attached to this aspect of the constitution. Throughout history one will find that the way in which a cabinet is constituted, who chooses the ministers, etc., is in fact one of the important symbols which indicate to the people concerned the speed at which they are developing and how close they are getting to their ultimate end, if I may call it that, which is being held out to them.

The fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is at this early stage saying to the White voters—who after all have the last say—that these people are making rapid progress, something which is not only being said in words, but is being laid down in law, is sufficient grounds for me to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I cannot support this measure; the pattern is too clear, and I do not agree with that pattern. I am certainly not in favour of any constitutional development which may complete that pattern sooner. I think the United Party is fully entitled, in the light of the general background of the pattern which is developing here, to vote against this Bill, particular, too, in the light of the attitude which is adopted previously in this House.

The hon. member for Pinelands is an attractive young man and a relatively senior man in the United Party. After listening to what I had said in my Second Reading speech, he came along and said that if the Executive Committee of the Transkei Legislative Assembly had requested what is contained in this Bill, he would have adopted a specific attitude in regard to this matter, and that if the Legislative Assembly itself had asked for it, he would have adopted a different attitude; in fact, if I understood him correctly, he would even in that case have been prepared to support this Bill.

No.

The hon. member went on to say that this Bill was disastrous for South Africa. What is in my opinion more disastrous for South Africa than this Bill can ever be, is when a senior member of the United Party makes such an elementary error, after I had said a half hour or more ago in my Second Reading speech—

Does that appear in the minutes of the Assembly as a substantive motion?

Yes. It was a motion. Not only the hon. member for Pinelands but one speaker after another on that side made this elementary error of not hearing that this came on the direct request of the Legislative Assembly, what is more, the Legislative Assembly was unanimous in asking for this, in other words, the Government as well as the Opposition party, and they did so by way of a formal motion in the Assembly. Surely that is elementary. And yet the United Party maintains that this Bill is disastrous for South Africa.

It is the direction which is disastrous.

Surely this attitude is somewhat ridiculous and is really taking the matter much too far. I want to place on record my strongest objection to that. I shall return to these aspects later.

Another striking aspect which emerged from the Opposition side is that in regard to the second aspect of this Bill, i.e. the addition of one chief to the number of chiefs in the Legislative Assembly, the representative of Kentani, is that not one single Opposition member had a word to say about it, not a single word.

They are coming right.

Yes, they coming right. Now you must see, Sir, what the deeper significance of that is. If I remember correctly the United Party put up a fierce fight in this House against chiefs’ representation in the Legislative Assembly and said that these people should be elected members. At present that Legislative Assembly consists of 45 elected members and 64 chiefs’ representatives. In this Bill the chiefs’ representation is now being increased by one. [Interjections.] It is very, very striking that hon. members on the opposite side said nothing whatsoever this afternoon about chiefs’ representation in this House. As the hon. the Minister in front of me here said by way of an interjection a moment ago, they are most certainly coming right in this debate. And that is very, very strange.

Sir, as far as chiefs’ representation is concerned, I should like to add this: As far as I know the homelands of South Africa are the only areas in Africa where the chiefs’ representation is synchronized with elected members and where it has shown itself to be a brilliant success, to the satisfaction of the Bantu and particularly of the people here in the Republic of South Africa—a great achievement.

In one chamber.

Yes, in one chamber. Hon. members on the opposite side would do well now to check up and see how they opposed this matter, but this afternoon they did not say a word about it. Sir, let me bring this important fact to your attention, i.e. that South Africa is here accomplishing a brilliant achievement in the homelands. May I also add to that that it is quite striking what happened in Africa. One of the most important reasons why Nkrumah was overthrown in Ghana was because justice was not done to the status of the chiefs there. If one considers what is happening in other parts of Africa, then one sees that things are going wrong for precisely the same reason; and if one considers what is happening to Kaunda, then one wonders what his future is going to be as a result of his having disregarded the authority of the chiefs. I should very much like to emphasize again that increasing the chiefs’ representation by one is a step in the right direction.

But let me demonstrate further how the United Party acted in this debate. What the Legislative Assembly had unanimously requested by way of a motion—i.e. to be able itself to appoint and dismiss Ministers—is being opposed by the Opposition here, but what only the majority party in the Legislative Assembly requested, i.e. to increase the number of members in the Legislative Assembly by one chiefs’ representative for Kentani, that was opposed tooth and nail by the Opposition party in the Transkei Legislative Assembly because they were opposed to that on the grounds of principal. You see, therefore, how strangely the Opposition is acting here.

But, Sir, they did a third strange thing in regard to this Bill here this afternoon —a very strange thing. Let me state with the greatest emphasis that it is well known that it is the policy of this side of the House to lead the Bantu peoples to independence …

Full independence?

The Bantu peoples know that they can trust us. We state that this is our policy and we make no secret of it, and I therefore adhere firmly to it. No incorrect inference must therefore be made from what I am now going to say because I have qualified it with this important statement of policy which I have just made. Sir, this Bill has as little to do with the independence of the Transkei as the weather, and that was the only point which the Opposition really seized upon and in regard to which they wanted to spark off a debate here, i.e. the independence of the homelands. This is a perfectly simple little Bill. As a result of the practical experience of the Legislative Assembly in the Transkei, in regard to the method of nomination and removal of their Ministers, they addressed a unanimous request to us. The Ministry considered the request and decided that it was fair to accede to it and to embody it in this Bill. I maintain that it has absolutely nothing to do with the independence of the Transkei, and the United Party has made as bad a blunder as it is possible for one to make in trying, as they did here this afternoon, to spark off a debate on the independence of the Transkei.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to proceed to react to a few things mentioned here by United Party speakers.

The hon. member for Transkei argued—and quite frankly, in my humble opinion, did so for lack of other argument because he did not understand the Bill— that Dr. Verwoerd must at the time have taken cognisance of this method of the nomination and removal of ministers as it was written into the constitution at the time, and that he must therefore have accepted it. The hon. member for Transkei is now putting forward the argument that if it had been acceptable for him at the time, why is this other system which they are now requesting acceptable to us? Therefore the insinuation is very plainly that there must be something behind this now. And the hon. member for South Coast went a little further, but I shall come to that in a moment. What are the facts of the matter now?

The facts in regard to this matter are— and this suddenly brings into the limelight the modus operandi between our department and Ministry and these Bantu peoples —that at the time the Bunga negotiated with the Ministry and the Department of Bantu Affairs, and the request from the Bunga was that the nomination of the Chief Minister and the nomination of Ministers should take place as it was then embodied in the constitution, i.e. that they should be elected by the Legislative Assembly. I want to state today that if the Bunga had at the time requested what they are now requesting, I am convinced that it would have been given very sympathetic consideration and it would probably have been written into the Constitution at that time already. And that is all that is happening here. At the time they requested that the Legislative Assembly should elect the Ministers, but as a result of their own practical experience—and let me say with emphasis here, in regard to which there was no interference from us—and political development, they brought forward the unanimous request that the Chief Minister should be able to appoint his own ministers, and not the Legislative Assembly. And that is all that has happened. I want to agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for South Coast that we should of course be careful not to make laws here in order to meet “hard cases” for the Bantu homelands. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for South Coast on that score, but he will as readily agree with me that if a Legislative Assembly of the format of that of the Transkei, come forward, unanimously, the Opposition as well as the governing party, with a well-motivated request, then we must consider it, and let me just say to that hon. member that he can go and take a look at the minutes. The minutes are those of 17th June, 1969, of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. That is why I say that if the Transkei Legislative Assembly comes forward with such a unanimous request, he will readily agree, we must give it our sympathetic consideration.

I want to add to that it is not correct to say that we are now placing a whip in the hands of the Chief Minister and that the Chief Minister is now going to be placed in a position to force our Minister and the State President of the Republic into a position in which they do not want to be. Why is it stated in the Bill as it is stated there, that if the Chief Minister wants to remove a minister, it must be done in the following way, i.e. by way of a petition. After all, the hon. member for South Coast knows how one sets about drawing up a petition. One does not snatch it out of the air. It must be accompanied by a certain measure of responsibility. Then it must go to the Commissioner-General and therefore there is an opportunity to iron out these things on the local level, if there were any suggestion of that which the hon. member for South Coast had in mind. And only after that procedure has been followed, is the petition brought through the Commissioner-General to the Minister of Bantu Affairs, and after he has dealt with it, it goes to the State President. Therefore I cannot concede that the hon. member for South Coast is in any way correct that a whip is being placed in the hands of the Chief Minister with which he will be able to make things difficult for us.

This afternoon the hon. member for Aliwal spoke for the first time in this House after his election to the Bantu Affairs Commission. In the first place I want to congratulate him on his election to the Bantu Affairs Commission, and in the second place on the good contribution he made in the House this afternoon. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that the United Party, apart from what I have already said, this afternoon literally tried to put a spanner in the works of the smooth functioning of relationships between the Chief Minister of the Transkei and the Legislative Assembly. I do not think that they will at all succeed in doing so.

With that I think I have dealt with all the points raised by hon. members. I also want to thank the hon. member for Ermelo and the other members on this side of the House for their contribution. The hon. member for Ermelo raised the question regarding clause 7. If a new chief minister should be elected and is saddled with a hostile cabinet, clause 7 makes it very clear in fact that the way in which that Chief Minister should set about matters is to request by way of a petition through the Commissioner-General, the Minister of Bantu Administration and the State President that such a hostile cabinet be removed. If a good case can be made out for the removal of that hostile cabinet, the Chief Minister will in that way be able to get rid of such a cabinet.

With this I think that I have now dealt with everything. I want to repeat that I do find it a pity that the United Party should have acted as they did this afternoon in regard to a very simple little Bill such as this.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, at the time of and with the passing by Parliament of the Seeds Act, 1961, an important milestone was reached in the development process of our own seed industry. There is probably no need to emphasize the important part which good seeds play in the agricultural industry. Because it is essential from the nature of the case for agricultural legislation always to keep abreast of changing problems, technical development and the needs of the agricultural industry, locally as well as overseas, it has become necessary to effect certain amendments to the Seeds Act, and I should like to draw the attention of this House to them.

The definitions of “variety” and “kind”, which represent important concepts in the Act, are being amended so as to adopt them to the latest international definitions, and this can be to the advantage of our seed-trade with overseas countries. The amendments to the other definitions in clause 1, are merely adjustments.

Because of the fact that the sale of seeds in smaller packages such as packets, tins, etc., is playing a bigger part, it has become essential to gain more control over the quality of seeds which are sold in such packages. By means of the registration of packers of seed, as envisaged in clause 5, it will, however, be possible to exercise the necessary control.

In order to eliminate the misunderstanding which has arisen with regard to the procedure to be followed in dealing with applications for the recognition of new varieties, it has been thought fit to redraft the section concerned, and to facilitate its administration at the same time. Henceforth this will mean that a variety will be included in the list if it complies with the requirements laid down in the definition of “Variety”. Recognition will be granted on the basis of distinguish ability, homogeneity and stability. Performances in respect of agricultural or industrial value will no longer be qualifying factors for inclusion in the list.

The insertion of section 9A envisages a system of investigation which not only amends the present requirement in terms of which all varieties submitted for inclusion in the varietal list have to be tested, but it will also be of the utmost importance to our farmers. In terms of the new system the Minister may, after a variety has been included in the list, decide to have it tested, in which case the variety may not be sold before the result has been published. Farmers will then be able to decide for themselves, on the basis of the published results, whether or not they want to cultivate the variety concerned. If, however, the results are so poor that it will not be in the public interest to use the seeds, the Minister may direct the deletion of the variety form the list.

In order to afford the users of seeds the necessary protection, varieties already included in the list may also be subjected to an investigation with a view to publishing the results or deleting a variety from the list.

Under the new policy as envisaged in clauses 7 and 8, of which I have just explained the details, the department will be able to pay more attention to investigations of seeds such as mealies, which have great economic value. It will, for example, allow of the temporary holding in abeyance of investigations of certain vegetable or spice seeds, which play a small economic part. Therefore the varieties concerned may still be placed on the list and sales may continue.

After careful consideration it has been decided to repeal the Foundation Seed Act of 1961. The most important consideration is that the Foundation Seed Board has for financial reasons been unable to exercise its functions properly. Furthermore, plant breeders in the private sector have made considerable progress in respect of hybrid mealies since 1961, and the Foundation Seed Board, which has primarily dealt with the handling of foundation seed of official varieties, started playing a smaller and smaller part.

Because of the fact that some of the principles laid down in the Foundation Seed Act of 1961 still remain very important and must be retained, provision has been made for the establishment of a basic seed scheme in the proposed section 14. This scheme will have the same objects as the existing foundation seed scheme, and the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will, therefore, continue to maintain the official and other important varieties which are not seen to by private breeders, and to make breeders’ material available to approved private seed organisations for the production of basic seed in terms of the basic seed scheme. Basic seed production will, therefore, be undertaken and financed by private organisations so that the same object as envisaged under the Foundation Seed Act may be achieved and the Foundation Seed Board may be dissolved without seed production in the Republic being detrimentally affected. I may add that through its various schemes the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will still retain technical control over the cultivation of seed.

The words “basic seed” instead of “foundation seed” are being used in order to bring this concept into line with the international one.

In the proposed section 14 (1) (d) provision is also being made for participation in overseas certification schemes such as the fodder crop seed scheme of the O.E.C.D. (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development), which has a high international status and of which South Africa is already a member. The Department is also keenly interested in the vegetable seed scheme which is at present being drafted by the O.E.C.D. The basic requirements under the O.E.C.D. correspond to our seed certification scheme, and seed which has been certified in terms of the latter scheme automatically qualify for certification under the O.E.C.D. scheme. Participation in the schemes of the O.E.C.D. therefore opens many doors to South Africa as far as the export of seed is concerned, especially because the schemes enjoy official recognition in the major Western countries and also has the support of the International Seed Traders’ Association.

The other amendments proposed in the Bill, are intended merely to facilitate the administration of the Act and to make it as streamlined as possible.

The draft Bill has also been discussed in detail with the South African Agricultural Union and the organized seed trade, and they are satisfied with the proposed amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister at once that this Bill has our support. The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained why the amendments have become essential. We on this side of the House support this Bill mainly for some reasons which I just want to outline in brief.

In the first instance, we support it because there has apparently been repeated discussions between the department of the hon. the Minister and the South African Agricultural Union with regard to this matter. Since discussions have taken place and since problems have been ironed out, we on this side find no reason for standing in the way of the South African Agricultural Union when they want legislation which will serve to promote the best interests of South African agriculture.

In the second place, we support this Bill because the farmers in South Africa will have to rely to an increasing extent on our own South African seed products. Because this legislation is aimed at giving greater protection to the South African farmers who have to use the seeds, we on this side of the House feel that we should not stand in their way. We are particularly pleased about the inclusion of the packers of seeds in this legislation, because they play such an important part in the distribution of seeds.

This legislation also contains measures which will undoubtedly promote the import and export of seeds and ensure that the quality of the product entering South Africa will undoubtedly be of a high quality. Therefore, as regards the export of South Africa’s own products, it is necessary to protect our name. Consequently we have no objection to the taking of steps in this regard as well so as to ensure that our product which will be marketed abroad will be only of the best. To a certain extent it is a pity that we have to learn that the Foundation Seed Act of 1961 never really got off the ground properly because of the fact that the Foundation Seed Board experienced certain problems with regard to its functions. Nevertheless, it is some consolation to know that provision will be made under this legislation for what the Board had been able to do under the basic seed scheme, and that the problems associated with the old Foundation Seed Board have been eliminated.

We want to tell the Department of Agricultural Technical Services that the passing of this legislation has our support, and that we hope a great deal more will be done in the future to ensure that we shall be marketing only the best product by producing the best quality seeds we can in South Africa. The expenditure of the South African farmers, as regards what they have put into the soil, is very high. If, in addition to that, a risk is attached to the type of seed he is to put into the soil, his risks are increased so much the more. By means of this legislation it can at least be ensured that the risk in this regard will be smaller as the quality of the seed will be good. That is why we support the hon. the Deputy Minister in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Newton Park has said we are supporting this Bill and I rise merely to deal with one or two matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I do so in order to give him time to look at them before we come to the Committee Stage.

Firstly, I would like to deal with the definition of “variety” in clause 1 (h) of the Bill. Should the word “and” not be added at the end of paragraph (a) after the word “properties” and at the end of paragraph (b) after the word “acceptable”? I see that at the end of paragraph (c) the word “and” is added and I wonder if it should not be added at the end of paragraph (a) and (b) as well. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to have a look at that definition.

Secondly, I would again like to make an appeal on behalf of the English language to stop it being murdered as in some of the Bills we get before us. In the new section 9 (4) (a) substituted by clause 7 of the Bill appears the word “varietal”. I do not know how to pronounce the word, because I could not find it in any dictionary. The word appears again in the new section 9 (4) (b) and in the new section 9A (1) (a) substituted by clause 8 of the Bill. In the new section 10 substituted by clause 9 of the Bill the word appears once again. We could have a good discussion as to whether there is such a word, but by the time the draftsman came to the new section 11 substituted by clause 10 of the Bill the same list is called a “variety” list. In the new section 12 (a) (i) he again uses the word “variety”. So he calls the same list a “varietal” list four times and then uses the proper word twice. I suggest that the people concerned make up their minds what they want to call it and I want to suggest they call it a “variety” list. This is the correct word to use, because it has a known meaning and also because I have been unable to find the other word in any dictionary. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister will want to be warned of these things before we get to the Committee Stage and that is the reason I point them out now.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for South Coast that I will go into the matters raised by him. I did not study the English version of the Bill myself and I agree that the word “variety” seems to be the correct one. In the Afrikaans text the word “variëteitslys” is used. I will go into these matters, however, and I want to thank the hon. member for drawing my attention to them. If there are any errors it will be corrected in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which is being submitted to this hon. House today, is merely intended to remedy a few administrative problems. The amendments in clauses 1 to 3 are being introduced with a view to metrication, while the amendment in clause 4 will eliminate the problem experienced in finding suitable persons who are prepared to serve on the boards. At present it is laid down in the Act that remuneration amounting to R6 per day inclusive of travelling and subsistence allowance, may be paid to the members of the board. This amount is inadequate and in terms of the proposed amendment the tariffs will be adjusted as the need arises. I move—

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the second reading of the Fencing Amendment Bill. I think the most important provision in this Bill is clause 4 which will allow members of the boards who will deal with any dispute in connection with a fence to receive a higher remuneration than R6 per day to which they were previously entitled.

Sir, I do not think it is possible today to find any farmer or any prominent businessman or other person who would be prepared to serve on a board of this nature for R6 a day. We know that in the past they were entitled to claim travelling and accommodation expenses. But now, of course, if this amendment is passed they will be entitled to a much higher remuneration. Because of this important provision we on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill.

*Clauses 1 and 2 deal, of course, with metrication only where, in the case of a fence that has to be erected, the two owners are obliged to clear the area up to five feet from its centre. Clause 2 applies only in those cases where a fence spans a road and where a 15-feet gate has to be erected. Of course, this becomes 4.5 meters now. We on this side of the House can find no objection to such amendments arising out of metrication. For that reason we support this Bill.

Sir, we are tidying up sub-section (1) of section 17 by clause 1 of this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister, while we are tidying up, would consider in line 10 deleting the word “immediate” and substituting the word “direct”, which will make it very much better.

Thank you very much.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill rectifies certain shortcomings in the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 which have come to light since the commencement of that Act. The amendments are necessary with a view to facilitating the proper implementation of the Act. I should like to call the attention of the House to it. In section 1 the definition of “land occupier or occupier of land” is being amended because problems are being experienced with persons selling sand, stone and soil and not wanting to apply the necessary soil conservation measures. In the majority of cases these individuals are contractors who are mining the material and removing it, and these persons have no interest whatsoever in the erosion vulnerability of the land. It is therefore necessary for provision to be made for these persons to be compelled, by means of a direction in terms of section 3, to apply the necessary measures in the interests of soil conservation.

A definition of “large stock and small stock” is being proposed because the term “stock”, as used in section 3 (1) (j), is vague, and this entails misunderstanding when the number of stock is prescribed for a relevant farm. With the new definitions the position will be put very much more clearly.

The amendment in section 3 is necessary with a view to prescribing proper grazing practices. The stipulation of the relationship of the number of large stock to the number of small stock is a very important factor with a view to ensuring the judicious utilization of our grazing land.

The repeal of section 7 (4) is being proposed because, although the intention of protecting future owners is a good one, it appears as if there will be quite a lot of administrative work involved, particularly after the Registrar of Deeds pointed to certain problems. However, now it is being proposed that a land owner’s contribution will be determined as soon as the planning stage of the soil conservation work is completed, payable after completion of the work. An agreement will then be drawn up with the present owner for payment of the contribution, which will then mean that the fears of future owners will fall away. With the fixing of the purchase price, if the land should be sold, the costs of these soil conservation works can, of course, be brought into account.

With a view to expediting the payment of subsidies, increasingly more reliance is being placed on the farmer to furnish necessary information by means of statements. With the proposed amendment of section 21 it will be an offence if false statements or information are furnished. This principle accords with that contained in the Income Tax Act of 1962, and this ought to facilitate the administration of the various aid schemes considerably.

The amendment in section 23 appeared necessary in order to delegate certain powers under the Act to regional heads, and in some cases to extension officers. It is also necessary to delegate powers to more than one senior officer because they are frequently away from the office as a result of numerous tasks.

As in the case of the previous Bill, we also support the passing of the Second Reading of this Bill. There is just a question or two I should like to put to the hon. the Minister, i.e. in connection with clause 1, where the words “any person who has a right to remove sand, stone or soil” are being inserted. Will it also be possible to make this relevant clause applicable to the divisional councils we have in the Cape, who frequently come along to farms and remove stone and soil in order to repair roads or to build a new road? In doing such works they frequently remove a tremendous amount of soil and stone. Can this clause also be made applicable to them? Because frequently it is not a private contractor but a divisional council that makes use of this facility. It frequently happens that they do not care in what condition they leave the farmer’s land, or the surroundings where they remove the soil.

In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is also possible for the definition of “large stock and small stock” to include certain kinds of game, because these days there are many farmers who purchase game with which to supplement their incomes as a result of poor stock prices. I think it only right that when a man is allowed to keep game, and when a direction is furnished to him in terms of the Soil Conservation Act, that game shall also be taken into consideration. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this is the intention. If this is his intention, all well and good. As I read the proposed new definition, game is, in fact, covered under “such other animals”. ’

Sir, then I want to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 3, where subsection (4) of section 7 is now being deleted. Subsection (4) was concerned with the registration on a man’s title deed of any debt that may be outstanding in connection with soil conservation work done on his farm. We can understand the subsection now being deleted; this is altogether reasonable. But how is a prospective buyer who wants to buy such land going to be aware of the fact that certain debts are still outstanding? Apparently these are not large amounts. Our main aim is to protect the buyer. Can the Department not register on the soil conservation plan that an amount of R700 or an amount of R1,000, or whatever the case may be, is still owing to the Department of Agricultural Credit under that soil conservation plan? I think it only reasonable that a prospective buyer be protected. A person does not want him to find out later that there is still a considerable amount, for which the previous owner is responsible, which was not registered on the title deed. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister whether repealing subsection (4) is sufficient protection for the prospective buyer of such land.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal for a moment with the point raised by the hon. member for Newton Park, the question of the farming of game, a development which is now gathering momentum. There are quite a number of farmers today who for a time ran game and domestic stock on their farms; they gradually got rid of their domestic stock and replaced it with game. Game is generally capable, under natural conditions, of making better use of the browse and the grazing that is available, particularly in certain bushveld areas, than domestic stock; so there has been a tendency, particularly in drought years, for people to go in for game farming. Sir, the matter has reached the stage where, for example, the Natal Parks Board recently got an order for game breeding stock from reserves totalling R70,000. One farmer was prepared to spend R70,000 to buy breeding stock for game. I am doubtful in my own mind as to whether this provision in the clause meets the situation. I refer to clause 1 (b) which, after defining “large stock” goes on to say “and such other animals as the Minister may by notice in the Gazette declare to be large stock for the purposes of this Act”. Then similarly under (c) the Minister may declare other animals to be small stock for the purposes of the Act. I am not quite sure whether that really meets the situation. I do not believe as a matter of fact that the people who are going in for game farming are in any way contravening the principles of conservation. On the contrary, as a group, I think they are very good soil and water conservationists, and I do not think that there is any need for the Minister to feel that there is a loophole here and that it must be plugged quickly. I do not believe that. I think the Minister has plenty of time. I think he can take time with his officials to scan the whole position. He can have a good look at it and then decide how best this position should be dealt with if it is to be dealt with by legislation, but I do not think it meets the situation merely to declare certain animals to be large stock for the purposes of this Act and other animals to be small stock. I do not think that that is going to be the way to deal with the situation which is developing. Sir, I bring this to the hon. the Minister’s attention now. I say that this is a growing industry. It is gathering momentum. I believe that economically it is a very, very good thing indeed so far as our livestock industry is concerned, and that the people who are entrepreneurs or who are coming forward now and playing their part in the initial development of the industry, want all the support and help that they can get. But a time may come when some control of this nature will be necessary. I suggest to the Minister that he take time by the forelock and that he and his officials should have a good look at the development that is taking place with a view to dealing with this matter when he comes along with some other amendment, if he feels then that legislation is necessary. I do not think legislation is necessary at the present time.

I can jointly answer the questions of the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for South Coast. Firstly I want to refer to the question of sand, stone or soil that is removed. I frankly admit that in terms of the Soil Conservation Act we unfortunately have no power to act against provincial councils and divisional councils. But in the past we have found that we get very good co-operation from them. My experience with the provincial councils, in cases where quarries are dug or drainage furrows are constructed alongside roads, was that the soil conservation committees consulted with the provincial councils about what is done with the run-off along roads. Quarries unfortunately have to be dug. They then agree that the quarries should be dug at an angle in order to combat erosion as far as possible. But I say frankly that it is not the intention to compel the divisional councils or to issue certain directions to them.

With regard to the definition of “large stock” and “small stock”, to which the hon. members for South Coast and Newton Park referred, I want to give the hon. member for South Coast the assurance that we must encourage people to farm with game, where this is practicable. If it will be more economical for him, he is welcome to farm with game if he wants to improve his own financial position and does not want to have his veld trampled underfoot.

But in the Act we have specifically defined large stock in such a way that it is classified as cattle, horses, donkeys, mules and other large stock. This means that if we want to add that a man is farming with blue wildebeest or with eland—he can never farm with kudu, because they jump over all the fences, but if he has certain animals which he purchased from the Natal Parks Board and he says, “This is the carrying capacity of my veld, but here I have a lot of blue wildebeest”, then they qualify under large stock. But then we come to the next man. In the past we only had the definition “stock”, and the next man is one who is farming with small stock, but he also has a lot of impala, which in my opinion fall under small stock. We have already included ostriches under the livestock withdrawal scheme and the fodder subsidy scheme. One can obtain a subsidy for ostrich fodder, but one cannot define each one in the Act, and that is why we have said that this is large stock and this is small stock; and then there is other stock that we cannot define here, but which we can include to cover this.

The hon. member spoke further of the registration of the title deed. That is correct. The hon. member would like to protect the buyer of the land. Members of the Opposition have previously drawn our attention to the fact that work is piling up at the registrar’s office, and we should like to facilitate their task. The hon. member must now remember that when we tackle a major work where this is applicable, the individual receives an average subsidy of 90 per cent or 95 per cent. On a work of R10,000 his contribution is therefore minimal and he signs the I.O.U. that he is responsible for that debt. But supposing he has not paid it, something that happens in many cases. I do not know of such a case, because it is a very small amount, and there are many of them who again borrow from Agricultural Credit in order to pay this small amount of 5 per cent, their contribution. But supposing they have kept silent about it during the transaction in which the farm changes hands, the buyer of the land still always has the benefit of that conservation work that was done there at a subsidy of 95 per cent. I can see that the hon. member is concerned about the buyer, and against the title deed there is no registration to the effect that he is protected. But in practice this is not of any real importance; in the cases we have, the contributions of the owner of the land are so minimal that he usually repays it. In addition, it is our experience that where these major works are done on a farm, the farm appreciates in value to such an extent that the individual does not readily want to sell it, because he can farm profitably on it. But in the future, if we find in practice that we are having difficulties, we can review these matters again. I think this is clear now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The background to and the details of this Bill have been explained in a memorandum which I have tabled. However, for the sake of clarity and in order to correct certain misconceptions, it is necessary to refer to matters dealt with in that memorandum.

At the outset I want to state categorically that the Government will not deviate from past assurances to the different Bantu nations of the Republic that it is the firm and irrevocable intention of the Government to lead each individual nation to self-government and ultimate possible independence.

Possible?

Yes—possible. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, the hon. member can go and play with something else instead of playing with words. I do not like it at this stage. The tempo of progress on this course will largely depend on each nation’s ability and in this respect the Government has over the years and with the system of government provided for in the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, been instrumental in developing leadership qualities and laying the foundations for that degree of statesmanship and the experience in administration which are so necessary for the government of a nation.

I know that in the beginning the system of Bantu Authorities was condemned, ridiculed and belittle in certain circles, inside and outside this House. If they have only limited respect for the traditional Bantu institutions those persons must today, to their shame, admit that they disparaged that which is the very essence of a nation’s existence. Today they have ample reason to admit that they were wrong in their approach to Bantu Authorities.

The initial steps for the founding of sound systems of government for the Bantu were taken in the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, and other legislation applicable to the then Transkei, wherein provision was made for, inter alia, the establishment of tribal, regional and territorial authorities in this order.

Subsequently, legal recognition was accorded in the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959 (Act No. 46 of 1959), to the fact that the Bantu peoples of the Republic did not constitute one homogeneous people but formed separate national units on the basis of descent, language and culture. Expression was given in that Act to the intention to provide for the gradual development of the different national units within their own areas to self-governing units on the basis of Bantu systems of government—systems for which provision had of course been made in the aforementioned Bantu Authorities Act, 1951.

Since the passing of the Promotion of Bantu Self-government Act, 1959, there has been a continual process of training the different Bantu authorities in the intricacies of government, with special attention focused on the territorial authorities as the highest institutions of government within the framework of the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951.

For various reasons, one of which was past experience in different forms of local government, it was possible to accelerate the process of training in the Transkei, with the result that in 1963 self-government could be granted to that territory on the basis of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963 (Act No. 48 of 1963).

In respect of the rest of the Republic, territorial authorities have in the process of training been reorganized and required to assume ever-increasing responsibilities for the administration in their respective areas to the maximum provided for in the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, and ancillary legislation. But the stage has now been reached where there is a generally felt need for legislation to place the Bantu authorities on at least an equal footing with the Transkei in so far as self-government is concerned.

This need for increased powers of government is felt by the Bantu as well as the Government. The Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, has, as I have already indicated, served excellently to activate and train the various authorities. However, the Act has its limitations in respect of the powers of government of the highest institution, namely the territorial authority, as the matters in respect of which it may legislate and, consequently, the matters falling under its day to day administration, are limited. These limitations can be remedied only by further legislation of this Parliament.

This brings me to my approach with regard to the form or pattern of the legislation.

Basically one of two methods could be adopted, namely: firstly, an Act passed by Parliament in respect of each Bantu nation, or, secondly, an Act containing general provisions common to all Bantu nations and enabling provisions for the specific matters which may vary from nation to nation.

In weighing up the two methods, one must of course have regard to the needs of the situation, which must dictate the form which the legislation is to take. When the needs in this instance are analysed, it is found that the basic requirements in respect of each nation are a central body vested with legislative powers and an executive. When details of the legislation are considered in this light it is obvious that, while there could be basic differences from nation to nation in the composition of the Legislative and the Executive and the way in which they function, there are hardly likely to be material differences in the powers exercised by them and in respect of certain of their functions. It is consequently immediately obvious that the situation can be met by an Act which can be applied in respect of all Bantu homelands concerned in that it provides fully for matters which will be common to all homelands and which is enabling in respect of those matters which could differ from homeland to homeland. In fact, such an Act would correspond with the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, in its present form in so far as that Act is enabling in respect of the establishment and detail of the different authorities but is making direct provision for their powers and functions.

The advantages of an Act such as this one under consideration are immediately apparent if weighed up against a separate Act for each Bantu area, which will inter alia mean a multiplicity of Acts and unnecessary, inordinate delays in dealing with the different nations.

It will be observed that the Act is divided into three parts. I am referring to the Bill before us.

Chapter 1 deals with the present system of self-government in Bantu areas and here we find the provisions relating to the establishment, constitution and legislative powers of a legislative assembly, the executive government and ancillary provisions relating to matters such as finance, inferior administrative bodies, justice and the public service—all matters normally associated with the good government and administration of an area. Chapter I is in effect complete in itself and it is possible under that Chapter to establish a fully-fledged system of government for an area.

The effect of Chapter 2 is to enable the government established under Chapter 1 to progress to a higher level of autonomy by giving it the status of a self-governing territory inside the Republic. Such a Bantu government will then be empowered to repeal Acts of Parliament relating to matters under its jurisdiction, and to provide for matters which are normally associated with self-governing status such as a high court, a flag and an anthem. In that way, then, it is possible for the area of each individual Bantu nation to progress to a fully-fledged self-governing territory on the basis of the Transkei as we know it at present.

The different clauses of the Bill have been explained in the memorandum which I have tabled and I do not consider it necessary to deal in detail with each clause in this speech. I therefore propose to refer only to certain aspects of clauses which I feel merit special attention at this stage. I will in actual fact deal with almost all of them.

Clause 1 is permissive in the sense that it authorizes the State President to establish a legislative assembly for an area for which a territorial authority has been established. This provision immediately defines the scope of the Bill, namely that it can be applied only in respect of an area for which a territorial authority has been established and is operating under the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951. It should be emphasized that consultation with the territorial authority is a prerequisite for the establishment of the legislative assembly, as it is for the constitution of the assembly under clause 2 and the executive council which comes into being under clause 5 upon the establishment of the assembly. A further point which should not be overlooked, is that clauses 2 and 5 leave ample scope for the determination of the method of constitution so that it is possible to provide for each individual nation in accordance with its needs and traditions. I also want to draw particular attention to the fact that the powers to provide for different matters in terms of these two clauses are in effect no wider than the powers conferred upon the State President by the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, to provide by regulation for the constitution of a territorial authority.

Clauses 3 and 4 regarding the matters in respect of which a legislative assembly may make laws and those that are reserved for legislation by an assembly, are self-explanatory. Clause 3 should of course be read with Schedule 1, and it should be noted that prior to becoming a self-governing territory the legislative assembly concerned is not empowered to amend or repeal Acts of Parliament and the prior approval of the State President is required before the assembly can provide in its laws for their application in respect of citizens outside the area but within the Republic.

I need not elaborate on the matters reserved from legislation by a legislative assembly in terms of clause 4, except perhaps to point out that similar provisions exist in respect of the Transkei.

The financial matters provided for in clauses 6 to 10 are customary provisions and to a large extent follow existing provisions relating to Bantu authorities.

Clauses 11 and 12 are necessary to regulate the position of paramount chiefs, chiefs, headmen, and existing Bantu authorities, while clause 13 provides in detail for the disestablishment of a territorial authority as a result of the establishment of a legislative assembly.

Clauses 14 and 15, relating to the administration of justice, should be read with item 12 of Schedule I, which confines the powers of a legislative assembly and an executive council, to the administration of justice in respect of Bantu.

Clauses 16 to 25 are consequential and call for no particular comment.

I now come to Chapter 2, that is clauses 26 to 36, relating to self-governing territories to which I referred earlier on in this speech.

In terms of clause 26 the State President may, after consultation with the legislative assembly, by proclamation in the Gazette, declare the area for which that legislative assembly has been established to be a self-governing territory in the Republic. It is therefore quite clear that in this clause our Parliament is in fact offered the opportunity to consider the principle that every one of the remaining Bantu homelands may become a self-governing territory in the Republic. Only the timing and the specific details of this constitutional development are not laid down in this Bill as it will be dealt with in the subsequent proclamations.

Once the area has been declared to be a self-governing territory the provisions of the next succeeding clauses come into operation in respect of the self-governing territory, namely clauses 27 and 28 providing for a flag, the design of which is to be approved by the legislative assembly and a national anthem to be approved by the State President on the recommendation of the legislative assembly, respectively; clause 29 which vests the executive government in a Cabinet, consisting of Ministers to be elected from the members of the legislative assembly; clauses 30 to 33 providing in detail for the legislative powers of the legislative assembly, the assent to its laws by the State President and the promulgation and enrolment of the laws; clause 34 providing for a High Court; clause 35 providing for the audit of the books and accounts, and clause 36 enabling the land to be transferred to the Government of the area concerned.

Chapter 3 provides for miscellaneous matters. Attention is drawn in particular to clause 37, in terms of which a proclamation issued under the Act is to be tabled in this House and in the Other Place, and can be rejected by resolution passed by both Houses during the same session.

Has it to be passed?

No, it does not have to be passed, but it can be rejected.

Schedule 1 lists the matters in respect of which a legislative assembly may make laws and in respect of which the executive government vests in the executive council or Cabinet, as the case may be.

Schedule 2 provides for certain amendments to the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, and the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, 1970, details of which have been furnished in the memorandum.

On the question of the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act, it should be noted that the whole Bill under consideration revolves around citizens of the areas concerned as the legislative assemblies are to be constituted from citizens of the homelands concerned.

*Mr. Speaker, it will probably be conceded—at least, I hope so—that this Bill, just like the Transkei Constitution at the time, is a further logical development of this Government’s policy of helping to bring about a government of its own for every individual Bantu nation. Therefore, by means of this Bill the consciousness of having an identity of one’s own and the urge towards realizing oneself, which are characteristic of every nation on earth, are finding expression in an orderly manner for every Bantu nation. This differentiation, i.e. that the White nation and the various Bantu nations in South Africa will therefore each have a government of its own in accordance with its own character and needs, is not only a natural phenomenon throughout the world, but also complies with the Christian outlook on life of live and let live, which is in effect a basic principle of the policy of separate development.

You may therefore conclude from this, Sir, that the fundamental explanation of this policy can be traced back to the reality of multi-nationality, i.e. that a diversity of Bantu nations are emerging in the Republic of South Africa, each connected with its own area and with its own distinctive character and characteristics, with marked differences amongst themselves.

For the systematic and purposeful development of every homeland into economic areas which will continually grow stronger, a sound administrative and political structure is essential, especially in view of the fact that political stability is a prerequisite for economic growth.

In actual fact this Bill is the outcome of the desires of the respective Bantu nations themselves, and is not being forced upon them by the Government. During its 1970 session the Tswana Territorial Authority adopted a motion in which they requested that self-government on the Transkei basis be granted to them. I have already informed the House of this. In the meantime some of the other nations have, through their Executive Councils, associated themselves with this move. Those people who did not specifically request a higher form of self-government, requested more powers, such as those for which provision is being made in Chapter 1 of the Bill under discussion. In all these cases the requests were made spontaneously by the Bantu authorities themselves.

To the objective observer it is clear—and this is a very important matter—that at present the Bantu nations in the Republic of South Africa are accepting the policy of separate development on a large scale as they see in that policy the retention of their national identity. Hope and expectations for the future are implied for them within the framework of this natural policy. Their national feeling which is awakening at the moment, surpasses the boldest expectations, and under no circumstances will it be possible to check that feeling again; but it is extremely important that this national feeling be guided into the right channels.

It was in this spirit that this Bill was drafted and prepared. On several occasions my departments held discussions with the existing Bantu governments, and, furthermore, I myself deliberated with the Executive Councils concerned on the principles of the Bill. All the negotiations were conducted in an exceptionally good spirit— without exception. When the Bill had already been cast in its final form, all the Executive Councils made a point of informing their nations properly about the contents of the Bill. The respective Executive Councils and the Executive Committee of the Zulu Territorial Authority were content with the pattern of this Constitution for all the national units within the Republic of South Africa (excluding the Transkei, which has already been finalized); I repeat, the pattern of this Bill. Typical of the reaction of all the Territorial Authorities, is the following resolution of the Executive Council of the Venda Territorial Authority which, signed by all six members, was forwarded to me, and I am going to quote it fully—

So much for the resolution passed by them. Then I may just mention to the hon. members that the entire Bill with an explanatory memorandum was submitted in full to all of these Executive Councils. Subsequent to those documents having been studied, these resolutions were passed, and similar resolutions have been passed by all the other Executive Councils.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister emphasized that the Zulus had only accepted the pattern of this Bill. Now the hon. the Minister says that they have accepted the Bill as such. What is the difference?

There is no difference. I said that I had discussed the pattern of the Bill with all of them and that they had accepted the pattern, and after that pattern had been accepted, I made the Bill available to them and they accepted that as well. Therefore, they accepted both of them.

I wonder what would have happened if they had not.

This Bill is the basis on which every nation can now continue building in order that it may, with the assistance of the Government of the Republic and by proclamation, draft its own constitution, which will fit in with that nation.

It cannot be argued away that this political development within South Africa is an unavoidable one and is taking an inevitable course here, and for that reason it is essential that in determining the guide lines along which this development is to take place, the absolute requirement should be laid down that the relations between this Government and the respective homeland governments should remain basically sound. In this case reciprocal consultations between the Government and the Territorial Authorities have laid the foundation on which this Bill rests, and this is also the reason for the satisfaction with this step among the responsible Bantu leaders and nations. In the future, too, reciprocal consultations will remain of decisive importance in guaranteeing the best mutual relations.

Time will prove that this Bill was a sensible measure for enabling all the Bantu nations in this multi-national situation to develop towards self-determination and independence. It would have been a happy day if everybody here supported this measure, for then there would in time to come not be people who would regret the negative attitude they adopted in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt in the minds of anybody in the Chamber or outside as to what the attitude of the United Party is in relation to this Bill. I have no hesitation at the outset in moving the following amendment—

The hon. the Minister certainly hoped that this would be a happy day for him and that this Bill would be accepted by everybody in the House. I am sorry to spoil his day which is near its end and can only say that this will not be a lucky day for the Government. The hon. the Minister started off by explaining why this Bill was introduced and he said that he has issued a White Paper in this regard and for that I want to thank him. White Papers are always very useful in studying bills of this nature. He dealt with the introductory remark in the White Paper which deals with the “irrevocable intention of the Government to lead each individual nation to self-government and independence …”. The White Paper makes this quite clear. These words can also be found in the preamble. The Minister, however, has added a word, because he said “self-government and possible independence”.

It makes no difference.

It does make a big difference. The basis of this Government’s policy is that the Reserves will eventually have complete sovereign independence and without this ideal and goal for the Reserves the policy of the Government has no moral justification.

If you have any problems with the word “possible”, you may delete it.

Oh no, one cannot deal with it as easily as that. This is a most important statement the hon. the Minister has made. Speaking on an earlier Bill the hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear that the aim of this Government was to give independence to the Reserves. The Chief Whip on the Government side said so too. Unless the Government does this, its policy has no moral justification. The whole basis of Government policy is that the Reserves must eventually get independence. I know why the hon. the Minister is now putting in the word “possible” independence. The Prime Minister extended an invitation to all the Reserves during the last session of Parliament for them to ask for independence. He wants them to ask for independence for the obvious reason that it is fundamental to Government policy that the Reserves must get their independence. But nobody has reacted. The Chief Minister of the Transkei said that he does not want independence until his State is viable. The only state that can possibly ask for independence at this stage and who can possibly accept the hon. the Prime Minister’s invitation is the Transkei. There is no other Reserve which can. But the Transkei said that they are not going to ask for it now because they will have to wait until they are viable. If one has to wait until the Transkei is viable before they can ask for independence it will never be independent. Now, Sir, the Transkei have not responded to the appeal made by the Chief Minister. Now, I submit that is why this hon. Minister used the words “possible independence”.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the Bantu Authorities Act, which was passed in 1951. He referred to the fact that this Act had been opposed by certain persons inside and outside this House. I want to remind him that when that Act was passed, it definitely did not apply to the Transkei, because the Transkei would not have it at that time. They did not want the type of authority which the Government was proposing to grant to the rest of the country. The Minister will remember that. Eventually a different type of authority was applied to the Transkei.

I referred to it myself.

I am not now talking about the granting of self-government. I am pointing out that the Transkei did not accept the authority of which the Minister said that everybody now regrets that they did not support the Bantu Authorities Act originally. I want to point out that the Government itself knew that it was not acceptable to certain of the Bantu tribes.

They had a form which could be used.

Yes, but they would not accept the form which was proposed by the Act. However, Sir, I wish to deal more fully with the Minister’s remarks and if I might, without interrupting my speech, I wish to move—

Agreed to.