I want to thank hon. members on both sides of this House for the contributions they made during this Second Reading debate, to which I am now replying. I must say the debate was conducted in a calmer atmosphere than I had anticipated. As far as hon. members on this side of the House are concerned, I want to convey my special thanks to them for the searching study they have made of the subject, something which is reflected in the quality of the speeches they made. What we had from the other side of this House, however, was a weak, political attempt. In the 18 years I have been a member of this House, we have never had any debate that has convinced me more than this one has that the Government is doing the right thing.

But before I continue, I should like to say that we on this side missed the contribution of the hon. member for Brentwood. In a debate of this nature we missed his knowledge and we missed his affable and restful presence. Our prayers, like those of hon. members on the opposite side, are that the care which he and his wife are receiving in the Karl Bremer Hospital will lead to their complete recovery so that he will be able to take his place here with us once more.

†In my reply to this debate I should like to address a few remarks also to the hon. member for Houghton and, consequently, I hope she will find it possible to listen to my reply. That will not be very long. The remarks I have to make are not based on political grounds but on the merits of the case. Perhaps she would after that vote with this side of the House. After all, it is today the 1st of April!

But before I come to that, I should like to comment on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville. This reads as follows—

Hon. members should note the words “now recognized by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa”. This amendment could easily have read equally well without these words. So I take it that these words were inserted on purpose. If that is so, I can only say that it is not only unwise but also ill-conceived, in addition to being most irresponsible, because it would be a retrograde step to do what the hon. member asks in his amendment. That can mean one thing and one thing only, i.e. that either another body must control matters pertaining to chiropractic, a body other than the Medical Council, or the Department of Health must usurp the functions of the Medical Council. That would constitute a major change in policy, a change which is not at all acceptable to us. In this connection let me say immediately that the one principle to which we will adhere, and to which we have to adhere, is that health services in all facets should be under the umbrella of one body and one body only, i.e. the Medical Council—not only for the protection of the public, but also for the further enhancement of the quality and status of health care in South Africa. I shall certainly not be a party to undermining the authority of such an august body as the Medical Council.

Will the Medical Council take the Chiropractors Association under its wing?

Of course not. The Medical Council is not prepared to do that; that is why I am making this statement that the hon. member’s amendment can only mean another body or the Department of Health, neither of which is acceptable. If the hon. member likes to undermine the authority of the Medical Council I am not prepared to join him in that.

If the views and this amendment are the considered views and amendment of the official Opposition …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the hon. the Minister misread the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The word “now” read by the Minister and emphasized by him does not appear in the amendment of the hon. member.

Very well, let us leave out the word “now”; it does not mean a thing. It then reads: “Who qualify at a chiropractic institution recognized by the Chiropractic Association of South Africa”. What difference does it make? Mr. Speaker, I say that if this is the considered opinion of the Opposition, the men of science in South Africa should take note and, I am sure, will take note with dismay of this attitude that the official Opposition is adopting. If it is a case of playing politics—and I am sure it is nothing else but that in the case of the hon. member for Rosettenville —then it is an ill day for South Africa that politics has been brought into health matters for the first time as far as I know. It seems to me it is both, and I am afraid that if it is both the indictment against the Opposition is even stronger.

Sir, the hon. member for Rosettenville and other members made the point that chiropractors do help people, that they do relieve pain and that they do do good. Of course, I agree with that. As a matter of fact, this was the case before 1928 when we registered doctors. Many quacks did some good; they relieved some pain and helped some people. That applies equally here, and let us be generous and say that perhaps it applies in even greater measure as far as chiropractors are concerned. But, Sir, that is not the criterion to apply in this particular matter. It is not a criterion which has ever been applied. We refuse to register medical men from medical schools from many parts of the world who could do a lot of good in South Africa, but their standard of education is not up to the standard that we require in South Africa. So I say immediately that although they do good, their basic training is inadequate and is not scientifically based to enable them to make a diagnosis. Let me say immediately also in reply to the hon. member for Musgrave that doctors make mistakes: specialist make mistakes — many mistakes — like other people. But they make mistakes with a safeguard to the public of the whole of South Africa that if they do make mistakes those mistakes are made by people who at least have the basic training that is required of a medical man, of a person who is called upon to make a diagnosis.

There is the same test of negligence for all.

No. I am coming to that. I am glad the hon. member raised that point because I will deal with that specific point in a moment. I am sorry that I have to deal with that point but I must do so.

This report which was laid upon the Table also had an annexure, annexure III, which sets out certain cases where chiropractors did harm to individual patients. That was not published for the simple reason stated in this report—

That is the reason why it was not published. But without mentioning the case number and without mentioning the name of the patient or the doctor in this House, I am going to read out a few instances, and I will tell the hon. member for Pinelands afterwards why I do so. I did not do so in my introductory speech because I thought it might not be necessary but hon. members have made it necessary for me to do so. The first case I want to mention is this—-

Then the second one—

The third one—

Another case—

The next case—

The next case—

The next case—

Let us give hon. members one or two more cases—

Tuberculosis of the spine manipulated by a chiropractor …

If it is so bad. why do you let it continue?

I will come to that. Just let me finish this and I will answer every question. The next one is—

And the last one—

Sir, why am I quoting these cases? Not to condemn the chiropractors as such, because I have already admitted that doctors also make mistakes. But I am prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, that these sorts of mistakes cannot possibly be made by a person who has had the basic training to be able to make a diagnosis. That is the only point I am trying to make. I want to give another instance. One of our great scientists in South Africa took his wife to a chiropractor because she had a stiff neck. After one or two manipulations she was much better, and has stayed better up to this day, so he did some good. But whilst he was away overseas at a scientific conference his son developed a sore neck. His wife naturally also took this child to the chiropractor. He did one manipulation and the child was worse. He did a second one and then the child was really ill. They called in the doctor and he said he could not tell what was wrong with the child; “Let us give him an aspirin and see what happens by next morning”. The next morning he came out in mumps. The point I am trying to make is that all we in South Africa can see as far as the future is concerned is that we do not allow new people to come in who are not qualified to make a diagnosis. That is the only point I am trying to make.

But the existing ones are allowed to continue.

[Interjections.] The hon. member for Musgrave said that if these people were so bad—and I did not use the word “bad” — there would have been a public outcry and an agitation from the public to ban these people. But that is utter nonsense, and the hon. member knows it. That is not a norm that he ever applies in voting in this House. I will tell him why. Only two or three weeks ago he voted totally to ban cancer quacks. Did he get a single telegram asking for the banning of cancer quacks? Was there a public outcry? On the contrary. I received stacks of petitions that high not to ban cancer quacks. So that is not a valid argument. People who benefit by treatment are inclined to tell the world about it. People who go to a doctor do not refer to that visit as a pleasant one if it was not.

*They are not ashamed to say that they have been to a doctor, but people who go to chiropractors or to quacks are. One does not hear of the people who have not benefited [Interjections.] My colleague here is a fair man, but really, I have all the text books here and I have not read in one of them that they claim they have the power to make hair grow. [Laughter.] But, in the second place, there are successes, of course, as I have said, but we must never forget that the psycho-somatic cases form a large part of this practice and that the training as a whole is intent on that.

†But I want to come back to the hon. member for Musgrave. When he started speaking it was my intention to listen to him very carefully and to take note of him, as a barrister, but I am afraid that I cannot pay him the compliment of saying that I could take very serious notice of what he said, for the simple reason that he is a most unreliable witness, and I want to tell you why.

The hon. member got up and said this: There are many …

I want to emphasize the word “many”—

A little further on he said:

He then goes on. I say that he is a most unreliable witness, because how does the hon. member know that there are many such medical practitioners. What does “many” mean out of 11 000? Does it mean 500, or does it mean 1 000? What did the hon. member have in mind? If he were defending a case in court, did he have 20 per cent, 15 per cent or 10 per cent of the 11 000 in mind? How many is “many”?

You must have a pretty bad case to use that as an argument.

No, I want to ask the hon. member to let me have all the letters and telegrams which he has received from medical colleagues supporting his view. Furthermore, how many doctors does the hon. member know personally? 20, 30 or 50? To test his sincerity and his reference to “many” doctors, I am prepared to pay for every telegram sent by that hon. member—not by me—to all the doctors he knows personally to get their views. Let us see what happens then. I say that he is a most unreliable witness.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does the hon. the Minister deny that his colleagues in the medical profession do refer persons to chiropractors?

I gave the hon. member the answer to that question. He is not only an unreliable witness, but he has a very short memory. The hon. member is getting old.

What is your answer?

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here and I will read it out. The hon. member asked me:

Does the hon. the Minister deny that medical practitioners send patients of theirs to chiropractors for treatment?

That was asked yesterday evening. He has forgotten about it. What was my reply? My reply was—

There are such practitioners, but to say that there are many is a complete falsehood.

How many are there in your opinion?

I challenge the hon. member to send telegrams on his own, which I will pay for, to all the medical men he knows and to bring the proof to me. I say that he is a most unreliable witness.

A reasonably valid point was made by different hon. members when they said that the report of the commission, which is before the House, was rather outdated. I think that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District and others made that point. In all fairness I must say that, on the face of it, it is not an unfair remark. In years it is reasonably outdated, but the situation we are handling has not materially changed.

How do you know that?

I will come to it in a minute and then the hon. member must listen carefully. Perhaps the hon. member will go back and get the sort of treatment that my hon. colleague wants him to get. I say that the position has not materially changed. The findings of our commission are as valid today as they were the day the report was made. Furthermore, the views of our Medical Council are their views in the year 1971 and not of the year before that. I will come back to this question in a minute.

Another fair question that was raised is why we only introduce this Bill in 1971 and not before? Hon. members know that this was precipitated by the public agitation, and telegrams and letters sent by the chiropractors as a result of the para-medical Services Bill of last year. It was precipitated by them. That is why we are only coming with this legislation in 1971. But it was also tied up with negotiations which took quite some time. I must say, in any case, it has never come from the Opposition that we should have come earlier with a Bill in regard to para-medical services, or for that matter, any Bill with which I have come to this House, except for one exmember of this House, namely Dr. Radford. He was a member of that party but was also a member of the Medical Council whose views I have quoted. I am sorry that he is not in this House today to discuss this matter with us.

The hon. member for Transkei asked me why the position has not materially changed and why I say that it is still as valid today as it was when the report was written. I have here the journal of the American Medical Association dated 22nd February, 1971. In this journal we have a synopsis entitled: “What the health care consumer should know about chiropractic.” I have brought to the notice of this House the views of the medical profession, especially in my introductory speech. I now want to bring to this House, in reply to the different questions put, the evidence, not of medical men, but of people outside the medical profession. This evidence was, as I have said, published on the 22nd February, 1971. It is fresh; it is new; it is updated and authoritative. The article reads as follows:

Why am I quoting from the United States? I do this for the obvious reason that they have the most experience of chiropractic of all countries in the world. In 1966 President Johnson appointed the National Advisory Commission on Health Manpower. This commission reported in 1967 as follows:

It goes further and says:

The position is the same in South Africa. Ideally, we should stop it today. But, as I have said before, it is not the tradition in South Africa to make inroads into vested rights which have been there in all good faith for many, many years. This was the report of the Johnson Commission in 1967. It was not a medical commission.

But there is a second report to which I should like to refer. In 1967 the American Congress ordered the Secretary of Health Education and Welfare to make a study of chiropractic. They submitted their report to the congress in December, 1968. The following are their findings:

It recommended as follows:

The question that was asked by hon. members is why tutors were not allowed to be brought from America and elsewhere to give evidence before our commission. I will give hon. members the reply. I should like to refer hon. members again to this 50-page report from which I have just quoted the findings and recommendation. I quote—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that this commission should have considered the evidence of such a report rather than hear it first-hand for themselves from such experts?

The hon. member has it all wrong. They never considered this. I am now giving the information to the hon. member, because they could not have considered this. This report only appeared in 1968.

You are implying that it was not necessary to bring those experts over.

I imply that this report is acceptable to me and that the tutors and everybody else in the United States, had the opportunity to give their evidence. I have given two examples from outside the medical profession. In 1969, two years ago, a Blue Ribbon task force was appointed to study the problems of Medicare. The Blue Ribbon represents the medical services in the United States. I quote—

So far I have named three bodies from outside the medical profession. I am giving the hon. member the fourth. I quote—

This is what they said in 1969—

Then the American Public Health Association, which is constituted “of the administrators of the nation’s public health programs”, and they strongly endorsed excluding chiropractic from the Medicare program. They went further and I quote—

Then I want to refer to a consumer organization, which is “the nation’s largest labour organization and perhaps the nation’s most influential consumer group”. They submitted to the Congress in September, 1970, a “fact Sheet on Chiropractic”. They said the following—

In August, 1970, the Consumer Federation of America, representing 184 local, state and national consumer-orientated organizations, said the following—

The last thing I want to quote is quite important, because this was said by people who speak from experience. The National Association of Letter Carriers, which incorporated chiropractic into its health insurance plan in 1960, said five years later in its report which was based on this five years of experience—

I have quoted these as recent investigations. They are up to date. Yesterday I said that if we have to give a lead such as we have in other cases to America and the rest of the world in regard to this particular matter, we will do so. These are the findings in America and this is what should be done there. We are doing it in South Africa for the good of our people.

*There is a final point I should like to mention. It was mentioned here that any patient had the right of making his own choice and going to whomsoever he wishes for treatment. I want to say at once that this is not so, nor has it ever been the case nor may it be the case. If this were the case all our legislation in South Africa laying down minimum requirements for certain professions would be wrong. For example, we specify that no one may be represented in any court by any person unless such a person complies with certain requirements. He cannot go to just anybody. We provide explicitly that a person may not go to a medical practitioner unless that practitioner complies with certain requirements. As a matter of fact, we say that under certain circumstances a person may not be nursed by someone who does not comply with certain basic requirements. Therefore the right of free choice is not absolute, because if this were to be the case, it would place an enormous burden on the State and on the taxpayer. It would also be a burden on the families of such persons and on sick funds. For that reason this right cannot be unrestricted.

They may not give out that they are advocates and doctors.

No, what I am speaking of now is the right of the patient and not the question of people giving out to be doctors, etc. In the report of the commission that investigated chiropractics, this matter is stated very clearly. I want the hon. member to pay close attention to this. The following is stated in the report—

It is as clear as daylight. For that reason it is very clear to me at this stage that we are doing not only the right thing, but also the sensible thing by not giving permanence to people who have four years’ training and who are then called doctors, and by not giving permanence to something which is not scientifically based. In the second place I also think it is the sensible thing to do not to make inroads on vested rights and to maintain them as such, as was the tradition in 1928, again in 1934 as well as at other times, and to lave these people who are practising today and who are earning their living in good faith, in a position to continue doing so. I think that we have adequately informed the public through this debate and that the Government has done its duty. Secondly, I also think that because of the fact that I am on the best of terms with chiropractors in South Africa, I have the right to make an appeal to them to realize full well their shortcomings as regards the matter of making diagnosis, and in future to act perhaps more carefully so as to assist us in that way in placing the health of our people on the best footing. As far as the future is concerned, they should also avail themselves of this opportunity to put their house in order. The medical schools of our universities must give more and serious attention, especially in respect of pre-graduate training, to manipulation and physiotherapy. I believe that this matter is to the good of South Africa and that it will place science, and especially medical science, in our country on an even higher level than it already is.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—72: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Campher, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, I N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman. H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens. J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Actually, this Bill is self-explanatory and very simple. It seeks to make the Legal Aid Act of 1969 also applicable to South-West Africa, including the Caprivi Strip. When the original Act was placed on the Statute Book, the administration of justice of South-West Africa still came under the Administration of that Territory. Since then, however, it has been transferred to the Administration of the Government of the Republic.

I may just add that this measure is being supported by the Law Society of South-West Africa by the Association of Law Societies as wen as by the Legal Aid Board.

In principle we on this side of the House have no objection to the extension of the Legal Aid Act also to South-West Africa. As a matter of fact, the only difference with regard to the Legal Aid Act between us and the other side is when and on what scale it is going to be implemented. The Minister now comes with a proposal that this Act also be implemented in South-West Africa.

But I find it unusual—to put it at the lowest—to find in the Estimates published yesterday that only R50 000 has been allocated for legal aid, despite the fact that this Bill is now going to extend still further the functions of the Legal Aid Board. I find this to be inexplicable and, consequently, I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to explain it. One appreciates that the board is negotiating with the profession, and that these negotiations take time. In the circumstances, I should like to know whether there are any prospects of this scheme being implemented within the next year? Furthermore is it not the Minister’s intention to obtain extra money to cover the extension of this scheme to South-West Africa? My difficulty is that the R50 000 in the Estimates is a column 2 item, which means that it may not be exceeded, nor may it be used for any other purpose.

So, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to bring us up to date in regard to the progress that has been made with these negotiations. Does he expect to come to an agreement within the course of the next year in so far as the implementation of the principal Act is concerned? All we have had up to now was only a pious statement of intent while nothing concrete has been achieved. This matter is rather urgent and the Minister ought therefore to take us into his confidence.

As I have already said, we have no objection to the Bill at this stage.

I think that I can reassure the hon. member for Durban North and at the same time give some good news. From the nature of the case the negotiations which the Legal Aid Board had to conduct, were very protracted. With the passing of the principal Act in 1969 we did, so to speak, throw the whole problem into the lap of that board by asking them to work out a scheme. But at the time the board was still to be appointed, and for that purpose nominations were still to be received from the various associations and from the Bar Council. After the board had eventually been constituted, staff had to be appointed. This, too, was done—a director was appointed. In the meantime the board had to obtain offices as well. In due course a typist was also appointed, and it was only then that it could start negotiating with the profession. First of all it negotiated with the General Council of the Bar. These negotiations were successful, for complete unanimity was reached as regards the fees that would be paid. Subsequent to that the board started negotiating with the Association of Law Societies. These negotiations have not yet been completed; up to now it has not been possible for them to reach complete unanimity. But as the board wanted to put the scheme into operation as soon as possible, it was decided last month to give instructions to attorneys. Attorneys may now submit their accounts. If these are reasonable, payment will be effected; if not, the accounts will be taxed. Therefore, the scheme is in actual fact in operation already. In the meantime agents have been appointed all over the country, persons who will act for the Legal Aid Board. They are officials of the department in magistrates’ offices and Bantu Affairs Commissioners. Therefore, the scheme is in actual fact in operation already. Instructions have already been issued to attorneys and advocates, and also to their agents, on precisely what is to be done.

The hon. member also referred to the small amount of money voted for 1971-’72, or which is about to be voted. However, the hon. member must bear in mind that the principal Act provides that any moneys allocated or donated in the course of any year may be retained by the board. In 1969 R50 000 was voted, and in 1970, when we expected the scheme to come into operation, we voted R150 000—R200 000 in all. Add to that the R50 000 which we still have to vote, and one finds that the board already has R250 000 at its disposal, minus administration costs, of course.

Will that be enough?

That is difficult to say. The board has laid down its rules in which it is stipulated who will be assisted; it has set income limits as far as assistance is concerned, and this matter is now in an experimental stage. At this stage it is very difficult to say what it is going to cost. Of course, the board will at the end of this financial year submit its report and its statement of accounts. Then we shall see how things are, whether the fees decided on are reasonable and whether we should come back to this House for further arrangements in this regard.

It would have been millions.

The hon. member expects it to be millions, but as yet we have no evidence of that. The amount which is at their disposal for the particular year is to my mind quite adequate for seeing out the trial period.

Sir, I think this explanation ought to satisfy the hon. member, and I take pleasure in moving the Second Reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second

Time.

The Bill before the House is only intended to make the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 applicable in South-West Africa. This step is the result of a recent congress decision of the South-West African Agricultural Union and problems that could possibly be experienced in the payment of subsidies to farmers, because the Promotion of Farming Interests Ordinance, 1952, is being repealed by the Agricultural Credit Amendment Act, 1970, with effect from 1st April, 1971. Problems may also crop up in the administration of the livestock withdrawal scheme if the necessary legal provision is not made. Unfortunately these facts were not known when the amendment of the Soil Conservation Act was before the House earlier this Session.

We on this side of the House are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill because we think it is a good suggestion that our Soil Conservation Act should also be made applicable to South-West Africa. Sir, if one studies the 1952 Ordinance about soil conservation in South-West Africa, one comes to one conclusion, i.e. that that ordinance is chiefly modelled on the old Soil Conservation Act that we had on the Statute Book in South Africa after 1946. When the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 is implemented here it is necessary that it should also be implemented there. The hon. the Deputy Minister sketched the background for us and indicated why this is necessary, i.e. because the S.A. Agricultural Union took such a decision, but let me say at once that it perturbed us when we read the amendment that the Deputy Minister placed on the Order Paper. We feel that it would definitely be a wrong step for him to want to exclude the non-White areas in South-West Africa from the implementation of the Soil Conservation Act. At the time we regarded it as a wrong step that our own Bantu areas in South Africa are excluded from the application of this Act. Sir, I do not want to anticipate the Committee Stage, but I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows why we felt at the time that the Bantu areas should also fall within the scope of our laws when it comes to soil conservation. The simple reason is that these Bantu areas all border on White areas, and if the best soil conservation methods are applied in the White area and not in the bordering area, this must of necessity have an effect on the conservation works in the White areas. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is no doubt that the Bantu areas are altogether overstocked as far as livestock is concerned. It is also true that the best farming methods are not being applied there yet. The result is that the effect is immediately going to be felt there in the White areas, and a similar position is going to develop now in South-West Africa.

Order! That is an amendment that is intended for discussion in the Committee Stage.

I do not want to take this too far, but I want to make the point concerning the position of the White farmer in South-West Africa. If, for example, one looks at the South-West Africa Survey published a few years ago, one finds the following interesting figures about the cattle stock in that area. For example, in 1965 there were 1 500 000 cattle on farms belonging to the Whites. As soon as one has livestock on any piece of land one will get a certain measure of soil erosion. It is usually in the extensive areas where one would get the greatest amount of soil erosion. But in the Native areas, for example in the southern sector, there were at that time 126 000 cattle, while in the northern areas—and these are among the best areas of South-West Africa—there were 664 000 cattle. In other words, a fantastic portion of the cattle stock of South-West Africa does not belong to the White areas; they fall outside those areas. I do not even want to mention the numbers, for example, relating to the Bastard area and other non-White areas. But that is the situation and I must tell the hon. the Minister that in spite of the fact that this is a good suggestion, we on this side are disappointed because the best soil conservation methods he may apply will not be very successful because the entire area is not being included in this legislation. As far as the White areas are concerned, I must say that the hon. the Minister can be assured of the wholehearted support of the White farmers in that area. They have already proved over the years, with the implementation of the 1952 Ordinance, that they are conservation conscious and that they realize that in South-West Africa, which is subject to similar climatic conditions as we have in many of our extensive areas, they must protect their natural vegetation. They are subject to the same thunderstorms as, for example, the Northern Cape. Therefore this legislation can only result in considerable future progress being made in the White areas with respect to soil conservation. In this respect we want to support the hon. the Minister in the passage of the Second Reading of this Bill.

In order to make any ordinance applicable in South-West Africa, a principal Act must also exist in the Republic, and that is why Ordinance No. 28 of 1952 is, in fact, Act No. 45 of 1946, which was made applicable to South-West Africa. This Soil Conservation Ordinance binds the South-West Africa Administration and is applicable to the territory of South-West Africa and the Walvis Bay area. The Rehoboth Gebiet and the other non-White areas were specifically excluded, for good and understandable reasons. This Act of 1946 was re-drafted in 1969. This Act of 1969 is now being made applicable to the territory of South-West Africa. The main object of this Act is to make provision for the combating of soil erosion and for the protection and conservation of our soil. This is of the utmost importance. I am grateful to be able to say here that the farmers of South-West Africa are conservation conscious. If one travels through South-West Africa, going specifically from farm to farm, one finds everywhere that farmers are combating erosion on their own initiative. Last year I made the interesting discovery on a farm, where there had been furrows for years, that by the erection of contours the farmer had reclaimed soil and now cuts hundreds of bales of hay there annually. It is no wonder that the South-West African Agricultural Union wholeheartedly supported this Act and asked that it should be made applicable to South-West Africa. However, they had one reservation, i.e. the request that this Act should not become applicable immediately, because they feared that it could adversely affect certain farmers.

It is perhaps necessary for me just to point out briefly to the House that up to yesterday two ordinances existed in South-West Africa. The one was the Soil Conservation Ordinance, No. 28 of 1952. The second is the Farming Interests Ordinance, No. 29 of 1952. It was possible for a farmer to qualify for subsidies under either of these two ordinances. The Agricultural Credit Act now repeals this Act No. 29 of 1952 with effect from 1st April, 1971, in other words from today. It will therefore not be possible for certain farmers to obtain a subsidy now, since this ordinance will now lapse. For that reason it is now necessary for this Soil Conservation Act to be made applicable to South-West Africa from 1st April.

I just want to impress upon the House the benefits the South-West African farmers are now going to obtain, which previously they either did not have or had less of. The subsidy on cattle fences and water installations was previously 33 per cent. It now becomes 55 per cent. All soil conservation and all erosion works qualify for a subsidy of 55 per cent. If the farmer requires no State aid, he can proceed with his own planning and his own arrangements without interference. If he wants to be considered for a subsidy he can do one of two things: he can either draw up his own plans and submit them for approval, or he can request planning. A further benefit is that all earth dams of 24 morgen-feet can now be undertaken by the farmer himself, without prior permission. An additional benefit is that ploughing furrows on floors qualify for subsidies as in the past. I just want to mention to hon. members that there are large floors in the south of South-West Africa where there is no vegetation. By ploughing up these floors, moisture is retained and grass is established there again. An additional benefit is that plans for standardized cement dams are now being made available to farmers for their use. If they make use of these they only need to furnish a sworn statement when the dam has been completed, after which they can apply for a subsidy. The livestock reduction scheme is now also being made applicable to South-West Africa. I cannot help mentioning that these benefits are really considerable for the farmer of South-West Africa. That is why I should like to give my wholehearted support to this.

Mr. Speaker, I want to support the bulk of what was said by the hon. member for Omaruru. We agree that the farmers of South-West Africa are extremely conservation conscious. They have a record of having taken the initiative in applying soil conservation methods. It pleases, too, to know that the South-West African Agricultural Union supports this Bill. In all, it does bring a better deal for farmers, especially those good farmers who are keen to apply good farming methods.

I only wish that the hon. member for Omaruru had expanded on something he said a little earlier in his speech when he said that as far as the ordinances dealing with soil conservation are concerned, the Bantu areas of the Territory and the Rehoboth-gebiet have been, so far, excluded for good and understandable reasons. We do not go along with that approach and I shall come back to it a little later.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Newton Park, indicated, we propose to vote for this measure at the Second Reading. We are naturally pleased to support a move to apply the basic principles of our Soil Conservation Act to the Territory of South-West Africa. As I indicated, I shall deal presently with one major reservation we have about the approach of this Government. We foresee that if the approach adopted in the Republic, is applied in South-West Africa and, indeed, the amendments of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture on the Order Paper, indicates that this is to be the case, the Bantu areas of South-West Africa, Namaland and the Rehoboth-gebiet are to be excluded from the operation of the Act. Our belief is that in matters of soil conservation water affairs and all allied matters affecting our country, there should be no fragmentation of approach as is apparently envisaged by the hon. the Deputy Minister. We believe that soil conservation measures can only succeed if there is an overall co-ordinated plan centrally devised and comprehensively executed.

The Soil Conservation Act of 1969, the present Soil Conservation Act, that we are seeking to apply in South-West Africa, was a far-reaching measure as we all know, which placed immense powers in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Agriculture. It enabled him to assume control wherever necessary, in the interest of conserving our soil, over virtually all farming operations. This Act, when it came before Parliament in 1969, was supported by us in principle, because we believed that we were justified in giving such powers to the hon. the Minister. But again, on that occasion, we did record our objection to the exclusion of the Bantu areas from the operation of the measure. We supported the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 because we agreed with the Government that the old Soil Conservation Act of 1946 had been perhaps democratic in its conception but it had been found not to have the teeth necessary for the effective enforcement of soil conservation measures, measures that necessarily have to be stringent, when the occasion warrants it, to succeed. It is still too early to gauge the full effects of the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 on the Republic. We shall probably not know how successful it has been for some years to come. But this Parliament can at least rest assured that it has taken all reasonable steps to see that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture is adequately equipped to apply effective soil conservation measures.

Indeed, with soil conservation and the protection of our environment generally, two matters that cannot be divorced, there is no reason why there should be any divided approach between the Government and the Opposition. Both sides of the House and all others with the true interests of our country at heart as regards preserving our natural resources, should be at one in wanting to conserve everything that is humanly possible and to improve wherever improvements can be brought about. South-West Africa—and here I am referring to the whole territory, including the Rehoboth Gebiet, Namaland and the northern Bantu areas—presents us with particular problems. These are problems of a magnitude and of a type which are not encountered in most areas of the Republic. Overall, South-West Africa is a territory which is poorly endowed with water resources. This naturally has a profound effect on the vegetation and the suitability of the land to support dense animal populations. Rainfall is extremely variable, and if the territory and its climate is characterized by anything at all, it is by unpredictability. There are droughts and floods, which occur without any cyclical regularity, although the drought periods are naturally much longer than the flood periods. The Weather Bureau, for example, has described South-West Africa as belonging to those desert or semi-desert parts of the globe where the rainfall is particularly changeable and unreliable. The report of the Long-term Agricultural Policy Commission on South-West Africa in 1948 put the position very succinctly. It said-

To the people of South-West Africa and particularly to those who are in the forefront of conservation work there, this is a matter of stark reality. The massive floods which occur from time to time in the normally arid southern sector of the territory, bringing with them washaways and erosion on a fairly large scale, are a conservationist’s nightmare. The problem is not confined solely to the southern sector, as our colleagues who know South-West Africa will accept, but applies throughout the territory. Coupled with the unpredictability of the climate, is the sparsity of vegetation over vast areas, although the territory has fertile areas and fine grasslands as well. There is a variety of soil types that are predominated by stony wastes, the areas of the “torreveld” formations, the KalahaR1 with its finely textured weak cohesion and high absorptive qualities and a variety of lesser soil types that vary from sandy loam to hard-baked pans.

The territory’s water, which we cannot divorce from soil conservation, comes from rainfall over the interior, underground water sources and boundary rivers or oshanas which bring in water from the neighbouring territories. Storage dams, large and small, are valuable to the life of the territory, but much reliance is nevertheless placed on the subterranean water resources and the sandy river-beds or “omarambas”.

Therefore, in the rigorous climate of South-West Africa, with its dramatic changes, lies a challenge to all people who have a regard for conservation work of the type that is envisaged by the Soil Conservation Act. The question that arises is whether this work can be done piecemeal and successfully. We believe that it cannot. One has only to look at the Fish River to see some of the difficulties which arise when there is not a centralized, cohesive overall approach, for the Fish River rises in the Rehoboth Gebiet and flows into the Hardap Dam outside Mariental, the area which is reserved for Whites. It then flows the length of Namaland from north to south before re-entering the White area due west of Keetmanshoop and flowing southwards to join the Orange River. If the principles of the Soil Conservation Act of 1949 are applied in toto to South-West Africa, in other words, if the non-White areas of the territory are excluded for soil conservation purposes, this area of the Fish River will probably fall under three different authorities, the White authorities in the White areas, in other words the hon. the Deputy Minister’s Department, the Department of Rehoboth Affairs, which will have jurisdiction over the Rehoboth Gebiet until such time as other constitutional changes might come, and the Department of Coloured Affairs which would presumably have control over soil conservation in Namaland. Elsewhere in the territory control over soil conservation would be vested either in local Bantu legislative councils in the case of those Bantu areas which have developed to that constitutional stage, or generally in the Department of Bantu Administration where local self-government has not been granted or will never be granted.

A thin dividing line can be drawn between soil conservation and water conservation. In other respects the two matters overlap and I think it is important to deal with these two aspects of the preservation of our resources together. It is interesting to note that in its recommendations the Odendaal Commission, in the case of each Bantu area destined for local self-government and ultimate independence as well as the Nama homelands when it achieves local self-government status, proposed reservation of control over water affairs to the Central Government, along with such things as defence and foreign affairs. We are aware that there is a conflict within the Nationalist Party in South-West Africa …

Order! The hon. member is going far beyond the scope of this Bill.

There are aspects I would like to canvass. We are examining the situation in the Republic and surely we are entitled to look at the application of the Soil Conservation Act here and the principles on which it rests in examining how it might apply to South-West Africa. I submit that we are entitled to look at it along these broad lines.

The hon. member is going too far.

I abide by your ruling, Sir. There is some conflict in the field of water affairs over whether the approach should be one of fragmentation or whether it should be centralized.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss water affairs under this Bill.

My submission is that this Bill applies to water affairs too, but I will abide by your ruling. We do hope that as far as the application of soil conservation measures is concerned we are not going to see the type of approach that we have seen in regard to water affairs. We hope, in fact, that the hon. the Deputy Minister might well be persuaded not to press his amendment at a later stage and that he might agree with us that if soil conservation is to be applied successfully in the territory, it should be applied over the whole area.

Order! That point has been very adequately made by the hon. member.

In examining the whole question of soil conservation in South-West Africa I think one must examine some of the legislation that has a bearing on soil conservation. If one looks at an Act which has already been passed by this Parliament, namely the Development of Self-Government for Native Nations in South-West Africa Act, 1968, one will see that this measure provides amongst other things that the following will fall under the control of bodies other than the central authority. These measures include the construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, furrows …

Order! The hon. member is going too far and must come back to the discussion of this very simple Bill.

Yes, it is a simple Bill, but I do feel that for the benefit of this House one must examine …

Order! No, the hon. member is going far too far. All those matters have been thoroughly examined before and have been included in measures passed by this House.

It is presumably the idea to bring the situation in line with the position in South Africa that the hon. the Deputy Minister proposes to come with an amendment at a later stage. I do not want to deal with this any further. I do want to say, however, that we are opposed to the principle of what he envisages, we take the attitude which we regard as the only sensible one, namely that soil conservation must be dealt with by the central authority.

Order! The hon. member himself has made that point on several occasions and it has also been adequately made by the hon. member for Newton Park.

In taking this attitude we believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is in spirit with us, and we know that he would not be the only senior member on his side who adopts this attitude. Last year the present hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, before he was appointed, made it quite clear that he was unhappy about the manner in which Bantu in some of the tribal areas were treating land under their care.

This is a point which can be discussed during the Committee Stage. We are not dealing with the amendment now.

Yes, but we are dealing with the Bill as a whole, as it applies in the Republic. I submit that we are entitled to examine how it operates in the Republic in considering how it might apply to South-West Africa. I will then not deal with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development.

The hon. the Minister of Forestry introduced the Mountain Catchment Areas Bill last year, and he then made it clear that its provisions were going to apply to the Bantu homelands, even though he went on to say during the passage of the Bill, that the actual administration would vest in the Department of Bantu Administration.

Order! The hon. member does not want to follow my guidance. If he continues on those lines, I am afraid that I will have to ask him to resume his seat.

Yes, I will come back to the Bill then.

So you admit that you are going very far away indeed?

I admit nothing. If the principles that are applied to soil conservation in the Republic are applied to South-West Africa, we shall be confronted with a most extraordinary situation. When one looks at the Rehoboth Gebiet, one sees that it lies in the very heart of South-West Africa as does Namaland. In both of these areas stock farming is practised and the state of the countryside there must necessarily have a profound effect on the surrounding areas which are the areas of White farmers. That should be reason enough to apply the important and stringent provisions of the Soil Conservation Act to these areas. It seems that we are about to pass a Bill which in effect will contain no statutory provisions for proper control over soil conservation at all in these non-White areas. We, the Opposition, realize that there are many dangers inherent in such a situation. We must therefore examine what has happened within the Republic to see how a fragmented approach can render us a disservice …

Order! That point has already been made half a dozen times. The hon. member must either follow my guidance or resume his seat. All he does is to make the same points over and over again, points which, as it is, have already been more than adequately covered by the hon. member for Newton Park.

I should like to go further than the hon. member for Newton Park has gone. I refer to this example in an endeavour to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister to adopt a slightly different line of approach. For instance, if one looks at the situation in Natal, one has only to recall what the hon. member for Mooi River reported to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration about the shocking state of some of the Bantu Trust land in Natal, to realize that it is not sufficient just to say that everything should be handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration …

Order! I am sorry, but I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation we have before us today is good legislation. It applies the Soil Conservation Act of 1969 to South-West Africa. We on this side of the House support the legislation in its present form. At the same time I want to inform the hon. the Deputy Minister that if his amendment had been included in the legislation we would have opposed the Second Reading. However, at the moment we give this legislation our full support because we feel that it is good legislation as it stands. As I have said, it applies the Soil Conservation Act to the whole territory of South-West Africa. We are strongly in favour of that and we therefore fully support the principles. It is important that we should have not only the Republic but also for South-West, overall planning for soil conservation —in fact, for everything involving our soil —according to which an ecological survey of the whole country can be done and a plan worked out to ensure that we preserve our soil for the succeeding generations. That is why we are making a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Cabinet to think very deeply about this legislation before we get to the Committee Stage. It is our fervent hope that the legislation in its present form, as it is here before us in the Second Reading debate, will go unchanged and that no amendment will be accepted in the Committee Stage. The application of the Act in the Republic of South Africa today gives rise to a strange phenomenon, as mentioned by other speakers in this debate, in that the Soil Conservation Act is applied to some parts of our country and not to others, and I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether such an ill-considered patchwork method is applied in any other country of the world. That is why we advocate the application of the Act to the whole of South-West Africa, particularly in those areas where severe droughts prevail and where, at times, heavy rains fall that cause a tremendous amount of damage. We must ensure that the whole area is not over-stocked and that proper works are carried out to conserve the soil of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I definitely believe, if you will permit me to say so, that the future generations of South-West Africa, whether they be brown or black or white, will owe a debt of gratitude to this House if we pass this Bill as it stands today. Our plea is that a plan should be worked out for the conservation and preservation, for future generations, of the soil of the entire territory of South-West Africa. Sir, we on this side of the House feel strongly that soil conservation is the basis of future life in our country. We feel that if our soil is washed away famine will set in, and with famine comes despondency and hate. That is why we feel, for the sake of peace in the future, that we must keep our soil. We therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to retain this Bill in its present form.

The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the Soil Conservation Ordinance of South-West Africa. This Ordinance reads as follows—

That is the present position in South-West Africa. The hon. member for Albany is worried and says that we are making a crazy quilt of soil conservation. Sir, that is just where the Opposition fails to grasp our idea. In 1969 we said that the Government’s policy is that the Bantu himself will develop his area, but that we would help him. To each his own—the Bantu in his area and I in mine. We already have vast stretches of Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland from which water also flows in our areas. In 1969 we said that if soil conservation must be applied to a Bantu area, we are delaying our entire action to save the White farms first. Hon. members are perhaps not aware of the speed at which the Department of Bantu Administration is at present carrying out Bantu conservation works. I wish I could show hon. members around the Northern Transvaal where Bantu Administration has carried out conservation works that are as good, if not better, than those on White farms. I realize that there is a specific problem in Natal, but this Bill deals with South-West Africa. The hon. member asks that the legislation be applied in South-West Africa in the same way as it is applied here, but let me tell the hon. member what the position in South-West is, for example as far as Rehoboth is concerned. The subsidy for the combating of soil erosion is 55 per cent and the subsidy on boundary fences is 25 per cent. We in the Republic do not have a single cent subsidizing boundary fences. But that is what they are getting in Rehoboth at present. The subsidy on inner camps is now going to be increased from 25 per cent to 55 per cent. The water provision subsidy is 33j per cent. That is what the Rehoboth farmers obtain today in the form of subsidies. We must not jeopardize the entire soil conservation idea each time with the story that it is a good and honest intention, but … and then we start asking questions. I could not quite follow what the hon. member for Kensington said. I think that if you realize that one day those areas will have self-government, and that we are educating them, guiding them and showing them how to carry out soil conservation, and telling them that in their area they must have a soil conservation Act similar to that in the Republic …

May I ask a question? If the hon. the Minister is so right, why did he not have that provision in his amendment Bill initially?

We only introduced the amendment, as I said during the Second Reading, at the request of the South-West African Agricultural Union, and we did not go into particulars. Then we found that a decision had been taken here about Rehoboth. Must we now deprive them of the privilege of obtaining 25 per cent on inner camps, for example, and say that they must be on the same footing as the Republic? It is, after all, the Government’s policy that those areas must develop independently under their special rules and measures.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The main object of this Bill is to consolidate in a single Act the existing Acts which prescribe the quality and other requirements in respect of the agricultural produce which is exported. At the same time use was made of the opportunity to improve the statutory provisions in question in accordance with present practises and to supply the deficiencies where necessary.

The Acts which are being consolidated in this Bill, include the Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959, the Fruit Export Act, 1957, and the Agricultural Products Packing and Marking Act, 1930. Actually, the provisions of the latter Act are already contained in the Agricultural Produce Export Act of 1959, and the Marketing Act, 1937, and this Act has been obsolete for some considerable time now.

The Agricultural Produce Export Act and the Fruit Export Act had precisely the same object, of course, except that the products controlled in terms of these Acts differ. In addition these two Acts contain so many similar or almost similar provisions that the consolidation thereof in a single Act is a completely practical step. Not only is the duplication of statutory provisions being eliminated in this way, but it should also result in greater clarity among the persons involved in the application of the Act in question.

It is obvious that the redrafting of the Act has resulted in certain amendments to the existing provisions. Some amendments were of course merely intended to improve the Bill juristically, and particularly to adapt almost similar provisions in the various Acts to one another, while others, on the other hand, comprised new principles. I shall simply explain in brief the general objectives of the statutory provisions which are contained in the Bill, and then point out the changes in principle which are being proposed.

Quality control in the export of agricultural produce is of course an important factor in building up a stable export market. Consequently the Acts in question are aimed at ensuring that only produce which complies with a minimum standard reaches the overseas markets of the Republic, and then, too, only in a condition and in a way which is acceptable to the consumer. Consequently these Acts make provision for the promulgation of regulations in which the requirements in respect of the different products are prescribed. Normally the requirements include provisions regarding the quality of the product and the way in which it is to be packed and marked. Obviously the export of produce which does not comply with these prescriptions is not allowed.

At present the Agricultural Produce Export Act provides that no person may export a product unless that product has been inspected by an inspector and marked after inspection. Unfortunately the definition of the word “product” is so wide that, practically speaking, it is impossible to prescribe quality and other requirements in respect of every commodity included in the definition of “product”. Hon. members will understand that in the absence of prescribed requirements, it is quite impracticable to require that such commodities shall be inspected and marked.

It is consequently being proposed to limit the word “product” now to those commodities for which regulations have already been promulgated. If a need should arise for quality control for any other commodity that commodity will be proclaimed a product under the Act as soon as the necessary regulations for that purpose have been drawn up. What is being envisaged in this way is to do away with the compulsory inspection and marking of commodities for which there are no regulations at present.

In the same context it is being proposed to replace the compulsory inspection and marking of products by a system in terms of which products may not be exported unless they are approved for export by an inspector. It follows that approval for export need not necessarily take place by way of marking. The issue of a certificate in which the consignment in question is described, has for example already met with general approval in the import countries in question.

Attendant upon this an inspector is being authorized to cancel an approval which has been granted for the export of a specific consignment upon re-inspection of that consignment. The object of this provision is to prevent perishable products which have already been approved for export from being exported at a time when the quality thereof had already deteriorated to below the prescribed minimum. This problem presents itself particularly in the case of fresh fruit which is packed and approved for export in the interior. If the fruit is not re-inspected at the export harbour, it may happen that the fruit reaches the overseas market in a poor or even perished condition.

In addition the Bill provides that products which are being exported to specific countries or for a specific purpose may be exempted from the abovementioned prohibition. Nor is it being envisaged to include in the new Act the traffic of agricultural produce in the common customs areas (the common areas of South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland), in the new Act; nor when new products are being experimented with (for example with new packings, etc.) on overseas markets. At present the Act requires that all products exported from the Republic must comply with the prescribed and other requirements set out in the Act, even if they are exempted from compulsory inspection and marking. It is obvious that these provisions can scarcely be applied in practise.

Another proposed amendment is to empower the Minister to make regulations. At present this is the function of the State President. It is no longer the practice to entrust functions of this nature to the State President.

With a view to the strict quality control of the European Common Market, it was necessary to include in the Bill provision for prescribing the maximum quantity of a foreign matter which may be present in or upon such a product. What is meant here in particular is the spray residue on fruit. In addition provision is also being made for prescribing hygienic standards for packing sheds in which agricultural products are packed for export. In the case of fruit in particular the problem arises that it deteriorates on its way to its final destination precisely as a result of unhygienic practices in the packing sheds.

Provisions for the delegation of the Minister’s powers to senior public servants is already generally applicable in a variety of Acts. The example is consequently being followed in this Bill, except in so far as it concerns the Minister’s power to make regulations. It is felt that this is not a provision which ought to be delegatable.

The Agricultural Produce Export Act, 1959, contains a number of provisions regarding the seizure and destruction of diseased animals whereof meat is intended for export and the use of abattoirs for slaughter for export of meat. In the light of the Abattoir Commission Act, 1967, and the Animal Slaughter, Meat and Animal Products Hygiene Act, 1967, it is not being deemed necessary to retain these provisions. The aforesaid Act contains adequate provision in this connection.

Similarly, the authorization to prohibit the export of an indigenous plant or part of such a plant, except in terms of a permit issued on the authority of the Minister, is being omitted. Section 87 of the Marketing Act, 1968, already makes provision for the promulgation of such a prohibition.

All existing regulations and proclamations promulgated in terms of the Act which are now being repealed, remain in force and will be deemed to have been promulgated in terms of the new Act. Special arrangements will, however, apply in respect of the wine regulations. The latter regulations are being applied by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and because that department is also administering the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957 and provision is already being made in aforesaid Act for the promulgation of similar regulations, it is being proposed to omit wine from the Bill as a product. The existing regulations will however remain in force until the new regulations are promulgated in terms of the Wine, Other Fermented Beverages and Spirits Act, 1957.

Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time that we are being afforded an opportunity of discussing legislation which is intended to improve matters in regard to the export of agricultural produce. The House has already done so on a previous occasion. Today the hon. the Minister is coming forward with legislation to more or less consolidate what has already been done in the past. Today, as on every previous occasion, he will find that this side of the House is prepared to support him because our first duty is to protect the good name and the quality of our South African products which find their way to the overseas markets. Consequently, if it is necessary to apply drastic measures to ensure that our name will be protected, I think that anyone in this House will be prepared to give the hon. the Minister that support. It has been shown that we have achieved success with the legislation we had in the past. That is why, when it comes to the export of agricultural produce, South Africa’s name is of course among the best in the world. I think that the farmers of South Africa realize this too. For that reason the Minister will also get the support he needs from them.

In the second instance it is absolutely essential that we give this support because the export of agricultural produce still comprises the largest percentage of all exports from South Africa. If one considers the figures from, for example, 1960 to 1968, one sees that the percentage of processed and unprocessed agricultural produce increased from more or less 36 per cent to 48 per cent in one year. The percentage of exports of agricultural produce is always round about 40 per cent, if we exclude our gold of course. So, as far as our own foreign exchange is concerned, it is absolutely essential, in order to do even better, that the good name of the South African product be protected. That is why we have no objection to this legislation. The hon. the Minister is of course taking fantastic powers. For example if we look at clause 4 of the Bill we will see that he can more or less regulate and control the whole matter of the export of agricultural produce. He can make regulations. But it is not a question here of people’s rights being affected. It is a question here of the name of our products being protected. That is why we have no objection to this.

But what seems strange to me in this legislation in comparison with what we had in the past, is the question of appeal. In this connection one can take a look, for example, at the Fruit Export Act of 1957. In terms of that Act, when a farmer is dissatisfied because his products were rejected at the harbour, there is a board of reference to which he can appeal. The board of reference then makes a decision. Of course there are certain practical problems involved. But if we take a look at the Agricultural Produce Export Act, Act No. 10 of 1959, one finds that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture appoints the board of appeal. But in this Bill which is now before the House, there is no mention of anything like this. We simply find in clause 3 (5) that “any person who is dissatisfied with any decision of or action taken by an inspector under this Act, may appeal against such decision or action in the prescribed manner”. In clause 3 (6) it is provided that there shall be a person or persons who shall decide in regard to such an appeal. Further down certain regulations are set out in clause 4 (1) (b) in terms of which that appeal can be lodged. Now I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what made it necessary to deviate from the provisions of, for example, the Fruit Export Act, in terms of which such an appeal can be referred to the board of reference, and of the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Export Act, Act No. 10 of 1959, in terms of which anyone who feels dissatisfied, may go to the hon. the Minister who can either reject or accept his appeal? It seems to me that there is a deficiency here, where the rights of the producer could be protected. This is a cardinal point. What was previously in the legislation, is now being omitted in this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not explain it. I think he owes the House an explanation in this connection. He must tell us precisely how the right of appeal is going to work and whether it is going to work in exactly the same way as in the case of the old board of reference. The hon. the Deputy Minister must also explain to us why he will not in terms of this legislation have that power which he had in terms of the Agricultural Produce Export Act in regard to appeal. If the hon. the Deputy Minister is proposing a new system, he must tell us what it is. I think we are entitled to know this, because a farmer is quite satisfied as long as there are no problems with his products and as long as they are not rejected, but is undoubtedly dissatisfied when his products are rejected and if there are no proper ways in which an appeal against such rejection can be lodged.

This is the only deficiency I see in this legislation. Otherwise it is excellent. There are no substantial changes to the previous legislation. In the past our export of agricultural produce has functioned smoothly. I see no reason why this should not be the case in future as well. But I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take us into his confidence in regard to this point and will furnish us with a good explanation. Otherwise I am afraid that we will have to ask him during the Committee Stage to accept an amendment in order to remedy the position.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park has pointed out the importance of export for our country. I agree with him. Export is our life blood, and we must have it. We cannot build up proper markets if we do not lay down standards for our products. Here the hon. the Deputy Minister has now come forward with legislation which consolidates existing Acts. This is going to make matters much easier for exporters than in the past, because now they only have one Act they have to look up.

In regard to the regulations the hon. member for Newton Park said that the Minister is taking very drastic powers upon himself. The Minister is not taking any powers which he did not have under the old legislation. These powers are, to make regulations, to establish grades, to ensure that inspection takes place and to lay down standards for packaging and containers. All these provisions already existed under the old legislation. Then, too, the hon. member for Newton Park mentioned the abolition of the board of reference. For many years I myself served on a board of reference and I know that the boards of reference caused many difficulties in the past because boards of reference had authority over inspectors. There was often the dissatisfaction in regard to the decisions of such boards of reference. Now I do not personally know what the hon. Minister wants to put in the place of these boards of reference, but I do know what happened during the last few years in the citrus industry. Experts who had knowledge of the industry, were appointed to these boards of reference, rather than farmers. In the past it was very difficult for the farmers to leave their farms so that they could undertake certain inspection work. For that reason I would welcome it if the hon. the Minister would appoint people here who have knowledge of matters and are people who are where they should be, i.e. in the harbour. It sometimes happens that upwards of a week went by before the inspectors could succeed in getting a board of appeal of farmers together.

I have said that it is essential that we should maintain our standards. The standards must not merely be for the quality of the product, but should also apply to the packaging and the marking of our fruit. That is why I want to say that this Act is going to mean a great deal to our farmers, particularly the fact that it is also possible now to inspect packing sheds in regard to hygienic conditions there and their proper functioning. The fact that this was not done in the past was a great deficiency. Another important clause in this legislation is that which deals with the question of spray residue on fruit and on vegetables. Health regulations overseas are becoming stricter, and it is very essential that proper tests be made for spray residue. In Germany, if a certain percentage of spray residue is found on fruit, the seller and the agent may be imprisoned. That is why it is very important that inspectors should also see to any spray residue on fruit.

I note that the regulations make provision for almost every export product, but products which are not found in the schedule, are frozen vegetables and fruit. Since we are at this stage even building up a large market for frozen fruit and vegetables and since if these products are going to become more and more important in future, I wonder whether we should not include these products in the Schedule as well. That is another product which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and it may perhaps in future become necessary to include this in the Schedule as well. I am talking about vegetable seed. Our country is already producing a great amount of vegetable seed of various varieties. The vegetable seed industry is still in its infancy, but there are certain areas in our country which are very well suited for the production of vegetable seeds. I expect that we may perhaps in future have to make increasing use of the export market for vegetable seed.

I welcome this legislation because it will stabilize our export industry. It will also make our people more cognitive of the fact that certain standards must be maintained. This can only be to the benefit of our country.

The hon. member for Newton Park said that the Opposition gladly supports this Bill. I am pleased about their positive attitude. That is why it was so difficult for me to understand last year why they opposed a positive Act like the one on the subdivision of agricultural land. In any case he asked a question in regard to the appeal to boards of reference. This is still precisely the same board, but no longer consists, however, of producers, but of officials.

The hon. member for Humansdorp served on such a board, and also explained the position. If a consignment of fruit is rejected, one must get the farmers together who serve on the board. That is not always practicable. As far as the export of agricultural produce is concerned, many changes have taken place since 1959. The farmer who today exports an agricultural product, does so through the control board in question. It happens very seldom that the producer lodges an appeal. The hon. member referred to citrus produce. A private farmer has his own packing shed, but he is already being inspected by his own board, the Citrus Control Board. It happens very seldom in practise that the product is rejected at the coast, and that the farmer has the right to appeal in that sense that an unfair practise occurred. I am glad the hon. member referred to that, because one wants to give the farmer who feels that he should be protected, the right to appeal. The producer himself has felt that it is more practical for him to have such a board which consists of officials who are continually available and on the spot.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to regulations. Frozen vegetables are not included, but vegetables are. Frozen vegetables therefore fall into the same category. As far as vegetable reed is concerned. I do not want to tell a lie, but I think it is being controlled in terms of the Seeds Act. But I shall make sure, because as I read the list, everything one can think of, has been included. At present we are in fact importing vegetable seed under the Seeds Act. I think, since the Seeds Act is being administered by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, that the necessary regulations are being seen to. I am grateful for the attitude of the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Section 10 (1) of the National Monuments Act, 1969 (Act 28 of 1969), authorizes the Minister to declare certain immovable or movable property, on the recommendation of the National Monuments Council, to be a national monument. However, section 10 (3) (c) of the Act restricts such action to property which “has been in the Republic for more than 50 years”. The restriction contained in the said paragraph (c) handicaps the Council and the Minister. For example, in respect of South-West Africa it is virtually impossible to declare immovable property which came into being after the commencement of South Africa’s mandate over the Territory in 1920, to be a national monument. Recently specific cases came to the attention of the Council of houses which are less than 50 years old and in respect of which it is deemed to be in the national interest for those houses to be declared national monuments immediately, i.e. two houses built at Pelindaba in 1921 and 1924, respectively, by the late Dr. Gustav Preller, a champion of language rights, journalist and historian. The present owner of these houses, the Atomic Energy Board, is perfectly willing to have these properties declared national monuments, but as the Act stands at present several years will still have to pass before one may proceed to declaring them as such. These few examples—and there will probably be more in the future— necessitates the removal from the Act of the age restriction in respect of immovable property.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech was short and to the point. It is a Bill to which we have no exception at all. It contains nothing really more than, as the hon. the Minister said, an adjustment of the wording of the original Act in order to cover immovable property and to make the situation easier for the National Monuments Commission. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we have no objection to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, personally I feel very happy about this positive and judicious amendment to the National Monuments Act of 1969. We in South Africa are very fortunate in having a history which is a colourful and very interesting one, and for that reason we have numerous sites, battlefields and buildings such as these. It is very wise that this amendment is being effected especially so as to include in this Act buildings which are not yet 50 years old. The important advantage of this is that it will make it easier to trace such a building’s history which is often handed down orally from one generation to the next. In this case, where this is being done specially with regard to the two houses of the late Dr. Gustav Preller, we want to say that it is fitting for this amendment to have to be effected as a very result of properties which belonged to an historian of note, a champion of language rights and a journalist, as the Minister put it, properties which can now be included on this list of national monuments. I think this House, as well as everyone in the country interested in these national monuments, ought to be very grateful to the Atomic Energy Board for this donation which has been made to the Council.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

In the Extension of University Education Act, 1959, provision is made, inter alia, to establish, maintain and conduct university colleges for non-Whites and to limit the admission of non-White students to certain university institutions. The limitation referred to did not apply to non-Whites in respect of their registration and attendance as students of the Medical School for Non-Europeans of the University of Natal, their registration as students of the University of South Africa and, with the consent of the Minister concerned, their registration and attendance as students of other universities established by Act of Parliament.

The Minister concerned usually granted such consent in respect of a specified course of study or training for a certain degree, diploma or certificate for which provision had not yet been made at any university college. In reply to a question by the Secretary of the former Department of Coloured Affairs, the law advisers expressed the opinion that the relevant provision did not empower the Minister to impose conditions when he granted consent to a non-White to attend a university established by Act of Parliament, for instance to stipulate what course was to be taken. Interpreted in such fashion, the provision would mean, in effect, that whenever he granted consent to such person, he rendered nugatory in its entirety the prohibition imposed by the legislation and would therefore not do justice to the real intention of the legislature.

It is considered essential that the Act very implicitly empowers the Minister concerned to exercise his administrative discretion, as it had always been the intention, when he is called upon to decide to which non-White consent may be given and to which one not, according to the degree, diploma or certificate for which consent to registration and attendance as a student at a university is desired. Provision therefor is being made in section 31 (2) of the Act, which is inserted by subsection (1) of clause I of the Bill, to the effect that consent may be given to a student under section 31 of the Act to register with a specified university and for a specified degree, diploma or certificate and to complete the course. Subsections (2) and (3) are intended to protect existing rights. As a result of the establishment recently of universities in lieu of university colleges for non-Whites, the consequential amendments to section 32 of the Act are at the request of the three Ministers concerned and are affected by clause 2 (1) of the Bill. At the same time an obsolete proclamation of the Department of Bantu Education is repealed by clause 2 (2).

Clause 3 contains the short title.

The fact that five university colleges for non-Whites became independent universities in 1969 has resulted in all students enrolling at these universities this year being technically guilty of offences. That is my interpretation of the need for the present Bill. It has, therefore, become necessary to amend the definition of “university” so that non-Whites may enrol at their own universities without ministerial consent. To this we have no objection.

But the Bill goes further than this. It has happened that non-Whites, who had obtained permission to take a certain course at a White university, subsequently changed their courses and still remained at that White university. It is now provided in this Bill that a non-White must obtain permission to take a certain course at a White university, and that he may not change his course or extend that course without the permission of the Minister.

†The Extension of University Education Act of 1959, to which the hon. the Minister himself referred, made provision for the establishment of university colleges for non-Whites and limited the admission of non-White students to other universities, with the exception of the University of South Africa and the Medical School of the University of Natal. Whereas the hon. the Minister interpreted the principle of the principal Act, which is here being amended, as being an extension of university education, we on the other hand interpret it as being a direct curtailment of the autonomy of South African universities. I would not have mentioned this today—the principle of the principal Act is not under discussion today—had it not been for the fact that the Minister himself did so this afternoon. These tactics are typical of the Government—whenever they want to remove some basic right particularly from our non-White people, they introduce legislation with a high-sounding name giving the impression that they in reality are conferring benefits instead.

Apart from the Extension of University Education Act of 1959 there are other examples of where the Government has acted in this way. For instance, there is the Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents Act. which was supposed to relieve all Bantu from the pass system whereas in actual fact it gave the Government greater control over the Bantu than ever before. But this is just for the record.

In this Bill section 31 (2) of the original Act is being amended by the insertion, by subsection (1) of Clause I of the Bill, of a section providing that consent may now be given to the student to register at a specified university for a specified degree, diploma or certificate and to complete such a course. This discretion rests entirely with the Minister and it is required that the student receive permission in writing. It is quite true that those already enrolled at universities other than the ethnic universities, enrolled with the Minister’s permission that is. may continue their studies there without reapplying.

But let me make it quite clear at the start that we are unable to support this Bill, for the following reasons. Since our interpretation of the principle contained in the original Bill of 1959 differs fundamentally from that of the Government, we opposed leave to introduce that Bill originally, in 1959, and we did so because it removed the traditional right of our universities to admit whom they wished and for what courses they wished. We held then and we still hold that the original Act undermines the traditional autonomy of our universities and so tampers with academic freedom. This amending legislation does exactly the same; there is no difference at all. The present Bill, as an amendment to the Act that we opposed in 1959, is therefore no more acceptable to us on this side of the House now than was the original Bill. Sir, the hon. the Minister may claim that the principle is no longer at issue, that the present Bill is purely a matter of mechanics. Well if he sees it that way, I am afraid we do not; we consider it to be a great deal more than that. The present Bill gives the Minister direct power to prevent a student whom he has previously permitted to follow a certain course at another university because there was no equivalent faculty at his ethnic university, from doing postgraduate work or from changing his course of study at any time. I do admit, having read the debate in the Other Place, that the Minister may consider the matter and decide on the merits of the case, but we maintain—and this is the whole basis of our argument—that these are not matters for Cabinet Ministers; they are matters which should rest entirely within the discretion of the universities themselves and nobody else. The previous Act, as I understand it, did not permit the Minister to specify the university at which a student might enrol, nor did it limit a student’s course of study. Once he had been given permission to enrol there he could go on to post-graduate work unhindered so long as the university staff considered him a suitable candidate for post-graduate study. Now the hon. the Minister takes these powers over his academic life and the continuance of his study. The whole gravamen of our case is that these things should have nothing whatsoever to do with the hon. the Minister. That is our main contention. I really think that South Africans are the most long-suffering people in the world. There is practically no aspect of our lives in which this Government is not intent upon interfering. [Interjections.] It is quite true. The Minister may see fit to give a non-White student permission to remain at a university other than his ethnic university for post-graduate study—I am not disputing that fact—but we are fundamentally opposed to this type of academic discretion resting in the hands of anyone except the universities and the academic heads themselves. The Government should not intrude in any way. For these reasons we reject this Bill as being merely an elaboration of State interference in the affairs of the universities. In other words, the whole principle of academic freedom is again involved here. May I just add that all the money that is granted by the Government to these institutions is after all money taken from the South African taxpayers. I know that the allocation of funds is a favourite argument on that side of the House. They are not a gift from the Minister, and he has no rights, we maintain, either rights of patronage or rights of control, over these institutions without being answerable to the South African taxpayers, which is why this Bill is before this House today. Sir, ideologies can be terrible things, especially when their application impinges on the academic field, and the Government’s intention to put everybody into intellectual straitjackets in this way is something of which we do not approve; it should be left to the universities to decide. Here the highest academic institutions in the country have one of their most important functions in effect taken over by the State; that is what it means. This side of the House, on the other hand, has sufficient faith in the integrity and the intelligence of our university leaders to leave to them all decisions as to the admission of students and the best courses for them to follow. On those grounds, Mr. Speaker, we reject this Bill in principle, specifically because of the extended powers which it grants to the Minister.

In her speech the hon. member for Wynberg used the following words, inter alia: “academic discretion should rest with the universities”. With respect to the argument the hon. member raised here in connection with the question of autonomy and academic freedom, I just want to tell her. if she is then so keen to argue about it, that this degree of so-called academic freedom and autonomy has already been undermined, if I may put it like that, by the Act of 1959. This argument of the hon. member, who is opposing the Bill on behalf of the Opposition, is nothing more than a pious veil and a pious smokescreen. The principle as such has been entrenched in the Act of 1959. It seems to me as if the hon. member and through her the whole Opposition, is simply conducting a kind of spiritless and senseless rearguard action here against the Act of 1959 in connection with the extension of university training. If the Opposition could, it would turn back the clock to before 1959 as far as integrated university training is concerned. This Act on university training already embodies the principle—I want to emphasize this for the hon. member—of limiting the admission of non-White students to certain White universities. Therefore the limitation already exists and is now only being given further practical application to plug loopholes that have subsequently been discovered.

Another principle was also accepted in the Act of 1959, i.e. the principle of separation between White and non-White students at university level. On 8th April, 1959, the Minister of Education made the following statement in Hansard, col. 3172, when the Bill was introduced. At the time it was still the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. He said the following—

That is the clause involved here—-

Specifically this aspect is now being amended here. In connection with clause 31, the Minister had this to say—

I emphasize the words “without ministerial approval”. And these two cardinal principles specifically form the core of this amendment Bill now before us. This was, therefore, laid down in the Act of 1959. The exclusion of non-Whites will gradually be applied as separate facilities become available for university training for them at their own university colleges, which are now universities; and, secondly, only the Minister will be able to approve the non-Whites that may still be admitted to White universities.

Sir, he has done it only for fields of study not yet provided at the non-White university colleges, later universities, and that is how it is done, and the Act gives the Minister the right of judgment about who will be admitted and who will not be admitted; in other words, the Minister is being given the power to exercise control over admission or to limit it. But what is happening now? That is very interesting. Many non-White students are circumventing these provisions. Some of them think up the idea of circumventing these provisions themselves, while others are being egged on to do so. They are being helped to find the loopholes in the Act. In the first place they enrol for courses not yet being provided at the non-White universities. In that way they initially obtain the Minister’s approval in terms of sections 31 and 32 of the original Act that we are now discussing. After that they change to courses that are being provided at non-White universities. In the second place they obtain ministerial approval for fields of study that are not yet being provided at non-White universities. They fail at the end of the year in that specific course and then begin a totally new field of study at the same university the following year. This is now a new course of study that is, in fact, provided at a non-White university. In the third place, some of them complete, up to the Bachelor degree level, a course which they can then pursue without further permission, with a view to obtaining an M.A. degree.

In that connection I want to give hon. members interesting statistics in respect of June 1970. In June 1970 the position in connection with non-White students who were still being allowed to attend a few universities by the Minister, was as follows; at Rhodes University, there were 40 Indian students allowed; at the University of the Witwatersrand 29 Coloured students, 290 Indian students and five Bantu students; at the University of Cape Town 305 Coloured students were allowed. Here you must remember that the University of the Western Cape for Coloureds is near at hand. In addition 139 Indian students and one Bantu student were allowed at the University of Cape Town. In Natal 35 Coloured. 35 Indian and 161 Bantu students were allowed. This comes to a total of 1 360. I now concede that the students studying at the University of Natal are all taking a degree in medicine. There is then a balance of 931 non-White students still studying at White universities. A very large percentage of these 931 non-White students at White universities are studying courses that are already being provided at non-White universities.

The Opposition is not that worried, as the hon. member implied, about the non-White students and their progress as such. To a certain extent they want to maintain a position where there are mixed students and a situation in which there is integration. They want this situation to continue. Those hon. members think that they have their foot in the door to prevent all those non-White students from eventually studying at non-White universities. Now the United Party is grabbing at this last straw in its opposition. The admission of non-Whites to certain White universities was a practice resulting from a gesture at a time when facilities for non-White students did not exist or were totally inadequate. But where provision is now being made at non-White institutions at a level comparable —and I want to emphasize this—with those at White universities, and the opportunities therefore do exist, it is not necessary for that practice to be continued. If the hon. Opposition wants to do it, it is a disparagement or a repudiation of the Government’s policy of parallel development. It would also be an insult to the non-White universities and a reflection upon the standards already being maintained there. The United Party’s alternative still remains that a university must do the preparation work for a multi-racial, integrated community. They do not want the non-Whites to be educated individually, each according to his nature, his tradition and that which is his own. They do not want the future leaders of the non-Whites separated from the Whites. But what are they doing now? They are depriving the non-Whites of leaders at university level. In other words, they are doing a disservice to the non-Whites. But they are also depriving the non-White leaders of the opportunity of taking the lead at university level in their own community. The United Party is here fighting a rearguard action in order to maintain mixed universities on a limited basis. They want to protect a process of equalization and a method for obtaining equality. Here they want to do away with the splendid diversity that we have in this country. The United Party wants the various population groups together at university level, so that Whites and non-Whites can maintain mutual contact, and they forget that these different people each have an individual national context. By their actions they regard the national pride, which these people ought to develop, of lesser importance and they want the people to neglect it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort got very excited about the difference in the approach of this side of the House from that of the Government. If anything, I must applaud him for accentuating the differences that do exist between us in this regard. When he says that our attitude is going to stop the non-White leaders getting their place in the sun in the academic world, then I think …

I did not say that.

That is what the hon. member said. He said that we would do that. By not wanting the institutions which the Government proposes, we would prevent these non-White leaders in the academic field from finding their place in the sun. That is what he said in effect.

Amongst their own people.

Yes, obviously amongst their own people. What does he think I am talking about? The figures which the hon. member quoted in hi~ speech surely give the answer to that. He indicated just how many non-White academic intellectuals there were at these universities. He pointed out what a great number of them there were and how they stayed there. Surely that supplies the answer. Are these not the academic intellectuals of the non-White people who want to attend these open universities to get a university education? I shall indicate that what the Government proposes is not going to give them a university education in the true sense.

Your argument is quite off the rails.

What is quite off the rails is the hon. member’s approach. We are talking here about universities. The form, the substance and the wording of the Bill, namely the “extension of university education”, is so much nonsense. It is so much nonsense became of the attitude of that hon. member. What is a university? Has the hon. member ever asked himself what the function of a university is? He admits that there are some courses which are not offered by non-White universities. Therefore, the provision is made that there may be some ministerial concession. What sort of universities are these which we have established in 1969, when one compares them with the university in the sense in which we have always known it?

Order! I think the hon. member must limit himself to the Bill before us.

The hon. gentleman also said that these non-Whites wanted to get their foot inside the doors of these universities and that that was what this Bill intended to prevent. Indeed, he is quite right. But I should like to refer hon. members to clause I of this Bill. How can one reconcile the powers of the hon. the Minister in this regard with what is the essence of university education? I ask again: what is the essence of a university of higher education? Surely, the essence is freedom; freedom of thought; freedom of choice; an intellectual freedom. But what happens here? Not the student himself, nor the university to which he is to go, the persons whom one would have thought best qualified to deal with this, is going to make that decision. It will be made by the hon. the Minister. He will determine which university such a student shall go to or if he shall go to a university at all, because the hon. the Minister will not allow them to go to the open universities, unless the course which they intend following is not catered for in one of the universities created for non-White people. But that is not all; the hon. the Minister will also be the selection committee. He determines what degree or diploma such a student shall do. Hon. members will notice that in the new section 32 (2) (b), which is proposed by clause 2 of this Bill, the words “faculties or departments” are proposed to be substituted by “degrees, diplomas or certificates”. The hon. the Minister will specify these degrees, diplomas or certificates. Can the hon. the Minister explain to us how he considers that he, the Minister of National Education, is in a better position to judge this than the university concerned where the student, is to go? These universities know the facilities they have and have the facilities for determining aptitude and have years of experience in this regard. How does the hon. the Minister of National Education become better equipped than the university itself, to determine what that student’s aptitude is? The universities that we are dealing with here, are the old established universities of South Africa, universities with an international repute. But the hon. the Minister now knows better.

Not only does the hon. the Minister do that, but he also specifies the institution which such a student shall attend. I wonder why the hon. the Minister feels that he should determine what institution that student shall go to? This reminds one of Henry Ford who, when he sold his first motorcars, said people could have any colour as long as it is black. That is what the hon. the Minister is proposing here. He is going to determine again a restriction in regard to the university. Why does he have to have that choice? Why should a student, for example, wanting to go to one university for reasons known to him, not be able to do so? Surely the university is better equipped to say whether that student can benefit.

One of the other aspects of this Bill that is extraordinary, if I may say so, is that it institutes a departure from the normal attitude of the Nationalist Government towards ministerial discretion. Usually they want the discretion and, of course, they are always given it. But here the hon. the Minister wants his discretion shackled. I know the hon. the Minister as a reasonable man. He is on record as saying that in terms of this Act all cases and all applications for non-Whites to go to White universities will be treated on merit. If that is his attitude, why does he shackle his discretion completely? He is now not entitled to say that you may do this or you may do that. It provides that “coment shall be granted in respect of a specified university, a specified degree, diploma or certificate …”. Now, why does he do this? How can he treat every case on its merits if he does not allow any form of change, of adaptation by that student, when he is at a university? What is his policy in this regard? What are the yardsticks by which he is going to judge the me of his discretion? If there is for instance no non-White university which offers a certain course and the non-White student concerned wishes to further his studies in a post-graduate course in the medium of Afrikaans, what is his policy in that regard? Which university is he going to send them to and on what basis is he going to send them? I want to suggest to him that the only basis upon which he can do anything at all in any event is to consult with the open universities concerned.

The hon. member who has spoken before me, the hon. member for Koedoespoort, I think completely misconstrued the conception that we have of open universities. There can be no objection to a university saying that it only wants Zulus or only Afrikaans-speaking people or English-speaking people; this is their right as a university. It is not a real university if it does not have that autonomy. This Bill is a vote of no confidence in the White universities of South Africa. What has been said here and what the hon. member for Koedoespoort underlined very heavily was the fact that the universities as well were allowing these people to stay in the universities because once they have their foot in the door the Minister could not send them out. The suggestion is that this is what they are going to do. I cannot understand for the life of me what the hon. member for Koedoespoort thinks is going to happen. Does he think that non-Whites go to universities in order to stay there all their lives? People do not stay there all their lives. What is more, the university concerned will not allow a student, whether he is White or non-White, to continue further with his studies if in fact he is making no progress. The objection which the hon. member advances as a justification falls away completely. What does he think are these universities doing? Does he think that because they are non-Whites the universities say they can stay whether they pass or not? It is absolute nonsense.

This, if I may say so, takes us in any event very much further. You cannot, and the hon. the Minister knows this, have intellectual apartheid. You can have apartheid in all sorts of things but you cannot have higher academic intellectual apartheid. In fact, academic intellectualism is the very antithesis of apartheid. It is a growing together, it is a seeking in all the fields which exist and it is indeed a dialogue between different groups. This is the very thing that is happening in regard to our foreign policy. The hon. the Prime Minister is attempting now to have dialogue with black countries outside South Africa and it is much to be lauded. But the only way in which there can be any understanding whatsoever between people of things and of each other, is by means of dialogue. This is the essence of a university; this is what makes it different from a technical school and from an ordinary school. It is the dialogue and the freedom of the intellect and the exchange of ideas in that place which makes it what it is. The hon. member for Wynberg has expressed our objection in principle and I do not think it is necessary to add anything to what she has said. I think the hon. the Minister owes this House an explanation why he wants these additional powers and why he wants to confine his own discretion in trying to implement what is not, in my submission, implementable.

I want to mention one last matter. If a student wishes to do a post-graduate course, he will in the immediate future be obliged in most cases to go to a White—for want of a better word—university. In the nature of things the other universities have not been built up yet. Who is going to be the judge of this? Is it going to be automatic, because there are no facilities at any non-White university for such a course? Is it going to be an automatic decision on the part of the hon. the Minister? If not, is the power he is now taking not to decide whether such a person can receive the education or not? Because that is what it amounts to when such a person wants to take a graduate course. In this regard, who is the best judge? The university who knows his record and where he did his primary degree and who knows him, or the hon. the Minister? These are questions we would like answered, and I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies, he will answer them. As long as the Bill is in the form in which it is at the moment, we on this side of the House cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I want to call attention to one or two things the hon. member for Durban North has just said. This might perhaps indicate the extent of the exaggeration in some of his statements. The hon. member for Durban North says that for people to understand each other, there is only one requirement, i.e. dialogue, and that the place to hold that dialogue is at the same training centre. I just want to tell the hon. member that there are many people on this earth that I will understand even though we have not sat on the same benches of the same training centre. There are many other ways of understanding and determining people’s needs, or whatever, than specifically by mixing with them on the campus of the same university. It is therefore a completely exaggerated statement by the hon. member. There are also a few other misconceptions that one could conveniently have drawn attention to.

Then the hon. member also says that it would be a “vote of no confidence in White open universities” if they were not allowed to decide which students they wanted to enrol. Then I could say that, as far as the hon. member is concerned, it is also a vote of no confidence in the non-White universities, because the hon. member also believes that they are not able to train these people properly in the courses they offer. I believe that this legislation is necessary. In the first place I think it is necessary because we have already come far since 1960. In the institution and establishment of non-White universities, we know of the opposition there was and of the names given to those institutions in order to discredit them, in order to attach a tag of inferiority to those institutions. We know how the standard of the training was made suspect in order to create the suspicion that the level and the standard of the education would be much lower than that offered at the White universities. We have come very far since those days. We have come to the point where the non-Whites obtain much greater benefits from higher education than previously. I just want to make these few statements. We have come to the point where various non-White groups have built up a pride and love around that institution where they are studying, because that institution carries the characteristic and stamp of what is their own. Something has already been built up in that sphere. We have come far, because we have, in the way we have acted towards the students of those institutions, given them the assurance that the legislature’s intentions were sincere, that it wants to give them every opportunity at their own institutions, that it wants to give them training of a standard equal to that at White universities. One cannot simply expect a university to establish itself fully within a day or two, that it should have all its faculties and all its courses available immediately. That is not how a university comes into being. It is a slow process. But because the non-White universities are very recent creations, I believe that their relative growth was more rapid than that of the White universities. Today they stand there as a great acquisition for the entire system of training and education.

But there is another important aspect that we must take into account, that of finance. We establish these institutions at great expense, on a mandate from the electorate within the framework of our policy. Separate provision was made. Some of the taxpayer’s money was used to make that provision. We have now reached the stage of development where we can accommodate more of the students at those universities for whom provision was made in the courses and faculties. That is why these discretionary and other powers are being given to the hon. the Minister. We cannot expect that now, after so much of the taxpayer’s money has been spent, the facilities which were created must go unused. We cannot allow the objects of the principal Act of 1959 to go unrealized, because the objects were the establishment of separate university institutions for the various non-White peoples and the full utilization of those university facilities.

But we can also use another criterion if we want to judge the Minister’s actions. We can ask where the Minister has acted in an irresponsible way with the discretionary powers given to him in the past. We also see a potential student in the gifted non-White. We believe that there must also be a place of training for him. He must be trained, inter alia, to go and serve his people as well. For what reason would the Minister now, if insufficient provision has been made at a non-White university, simply refuse such an applicant admittance and turn away a potential student who can serve his own people in his own territory?

It has been done all the time.

We do not believe that the hon. the Minister would thereby act so irresponsibly. If it has been done in the past, I would have liked the hon. member for Wynberg, who has just said: “It has been done all the time,” specifically to have brought us those examples and not simply to have flung this at us now as an afterthought. I believe that the students of the existing non-White universities can rightfully claim that members of their own race, other non-White students, should come and study with them at their own institutions. The persons controlling those institutions, who have been responsible for a great deal of development, expect the hon. the Minister to have these powers, so that the student, for whom provision is being made, can, in fact, receive his training at that institution. Sir, we shall probably be able to argue about this matter for many years; we shall come along with amendments and we shall always be diametrically opposed, because we on this side believe in the philosophy of separate provisions. We are now also giving the hon. the Minister the right to utilize separate provisions to the full, but our position is diametrically opposed to that of hon. members opposite whose basic philosophy is, as the hon. member for Durban North said, that we must be able to find each other in the same sphere. Sir, I conclude by asking the United Party: If their basic philosophy is that we should also be integrated in the universities, how are they thus going to perpetuate and maintain the leadership of the Whites in South Africa?

Sir, I would have thought that by now the hon. member for Germiston should be familiar with our policy in regard to universities and university autonomy. There is one point in his argument which I could not follow and that is where he implied that we on this side of the House were virtually tendering a vote of no-confidence in the non-White universities. I believe that is a groundless suggestion. I think if the hon. member for Germiston were aware of the serious brain drain which has taken place from the White universities to the non-White universities, he would realize that this is a remark for which there is no real justification. The hon. the Minister told me in reply to a question that information concerning the extent of this brain drain is not known, but I believe that this is a matter which does require serious investigation, because it is providing very highly qualified teaching staff in areas where they are unable to work to their maximum potential because these non-White universities at the moment do not have sufficient students to utilize the services. But I leave that point there, Sir.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister, who explained the purpose of this amendment. He indicated that the permission to be granted for a student to attend a certain university for a particular course would now be in his hands. I think I understand the motive behind this; it must surely be to fill a gap, a gap which exists at the moment because of the separate ideology of this Government which is providing separate training facilities. It is obvious that it is not possible to provide all these facilities in a short space of time. Until all the facilities are provided for the various ethnic racial groups in their own universities, it is necessary to ensure that training is available to certain of these students, who would not be able to receive such training at present at the ethnic universities concerned. I accept that. But we know that the process is a gradual one; we know that in certain vital avenues such as medicine, for example, and pharmacy, facilities have been provided. But there are many other avenues in which facilities have not yet been provided. I have in mind subjects such as architecture, quantity surveying, various engineering subjects, various aspects of training in pure chemistry, and many others.

Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort indicated that there were over 1 000 non-Whites at universities for Whites, receiving training in various subjects. The universities which the hon. the member listed, as I understood him, were universities where the English language is used as the medium of training. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can indicate what facilities he has in mind for those non-Whites who receive their primary and secondary education in the Afrikaans medium and who would prefer to receive their university training in subjects which cannot be taught at the ethnic universities, in the Afrikaans medium as well. Sir, I appreciate that specific provision is made in the Bill for the University of South Africa to play its part, but I visualize that there could be certain difficulties, particularly in subjects where practical training may be necessary. It seems to me that this is almost another gap. What facilities will be given to these people who wish to receive university training in subjects not being offered to them at present at the various ethnic universities, to receive their training in the Afrikaans medium? You see, Sir, I believe that particularly as far as the Bantu are concerned they have this handicap, because with their Bantu languages they are unable to receive technical training in modern subjects in their own vernacular. They have to choose one of the two official languages in which they find it more convenient and easier to be educated. I think it is only just that these people should have specific provision made for them, and I hope that when the Minister replies he will indicate that in this respect there will be adequate facilities.

Sir, I am an optimist by nature but I am also realistic enough not to have expected the Opposition to support this Bill, not because it is not a good Bill, not because there are any actual principles to which the Opposition can object, but simply because the Opposition is opposed to the principle of the principal Act. I therefore want to go into a few of these matters.

Order! I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to discuss the principal Act now.

No, you may rest assured, Sir, that I will not yield to that temptation. In the first place, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said here, and I want to say that I have quite a good deal of appreciation for the sincerity she displayed. She made it very clear that she was actually opposed to the underlying principle which is embodied in the principal Act. She then left it at that; she did not elaborate on the matter. She advanced other arguments which she really wanted to project against the background of that principle. I found the defence which the Opposition came up with here today to be an interesting one. We found the hon. member for Durban North, as advocate, also participating in this debate. It is of course his task as a lawyer to defend all kinds of cases—sometimes good cases, sometimes less favourable cases, and sometimes even very weak cases.

Mostly weak cases.

Sir, you will agree with me that my hon. friend opposite had a very weak case to defend today, and that is why he had such a hard time of it. Just imagine, Sir, a learned advocate, with the experience of this House which that hon. member has, coming along here and together with the hon. member for Wynberg—I must say in his case that he did it quite by the way—making a reference to the name of this Bill, namely Extension of University Training, with the implication that was actually an attempt by this side of the House to be misleading: that it is a screen behind which the Government wishes to hide in order to go and do something sinister. Sir, surely the hon. members know that this Bill received this name 10 years ago when it was the object of the Government to establish university facilities for various non-White ethnic units. That is why the legislation got the name of “Extension of University Training”. Today an amendment is being made to this Act, and this is the only reason for the name of the Bill. I do not think, therefore, that there is much substance to that argument.

Mr. Speaker, I should like, with reference to arguments advanced by hon. members on the opposite side, to quote an extract from the Rand Daily Mail of 2nd March. There a rector of one of our so-called open universities said the following:

I wonder whether hon. speakers on the Opposition side have ever become acquainted with the work which is being done at these, as they like to call them, ethnic universities; whether they have taken cognisance of the phenomenal growth of those institutions. My colleague, the hon. member for Germiston referred to that. The hon. member for Durban North lives between two of those universities, the University for Indians and the one for Zulus, and I wonder whether he has ever taken the trouble to pay a visit to either of them to see what is being done there. I want to tell him that those universities began in a small way, with all the possible opposition one can think of, and they grew into something of which not only this side of the House but also that side of the House can be proud. I want to tell you that this is something of which the other universities for Whites in this country are equally proud, because there have been real achievements there and heights have been reached for which we can only be grateful. Facilities have been created there for people to equip themselves for the leadership which is necessary in their community. I think we must do everything possible to help them to greater heights and to achieve greater usefulness in their society.

Now the hon. member for Durban North is saving that the Minister, with the powers which he is receiving today, not only has a discretionary power, but he is in reality the selection committee as well; he decides which student goes to university and which one does not; he decides as it were which student goes to study and which one does not. Sir, surely this is not stated in the Bill before us. I have already emphasized, and I want to repeat it, that this side of the House took the initiative 10 years ago in opening up opportunities for non-White students in this country which they had never had before. This side of the House established means which certain White students in certain circumstances would envy these non-White students. For the hon. member for Durban North to come and say now that we are trying to close the door to non-White students who want to go and study, is surely inconsistent with the truth. What is the actual position? The fact of the matter is that we have an Act on the Statute Book which has been in operation for 10 years, and it has functioned on the basis that the Minister can give non-White students for whose course of study provision has not yet been made at the ethnical universities, the right to attend a White university.

In every case?

I cannot talk about every case, because I have not dealt with every case, but I can inform the hon. member for Wynberg, who asked the question, that I do not know of any case which was refused in such circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility for a student to go and study at an ethnical university. I said that this measure has been on the Statute Book for 10 years, and for 10 years the Ministers who held this portfolio previously allowed non-White students to go to White universities if there were no facilities for them at their own universities. For 10 years those students, the White universities as well as the non-White university colleges, accepted that arrangement, that they are granted consent to take a special course of study at that university, for a special degree or a special diploma. I want to make it very clear that I do not have any knowledge today of any representations which have been made to the effect that that arrangement is being abused or contravened. I do not have a single case before me which supports that fact. What happened, is what I said in my Second Reading speech, i.e. that the Secretary of the former Department of Coloured Affairs put four questions to the legal advisers. I have the questions here, but I do not want to occupy the time of the House with them. But the one question he put and to which the legal advisers replied “No”, was whether the Minister, when he exercises his discretionary rights, has the right to tell a student that he must attend a specific university for Whites to follow a specific course of study there, and if he again wants to enrol for another course, he must again obtain permission from the Minister. The reply of the legal advisers to that question was: No, the Minister does not have the right. I am appearing before this House today simply to make this matter absolutely clear, i.e. to give statutory substance to—call it a practice if you wish—something which has been in force for 10 years and which has been accepted by everyone.

Opposition speakers have once again made a great fuss about the fact that it is not the Minister who should exercise this discretion, but that the university is competent to exercise it and that they are even better able to do so than the Minister.

Quite right.

But do hon. members, including the hon. member for Rosettenville who is now interrupting with his “Quite right”, not know that all these universities control the right of admission of students. If I give permission to a non-White student to enrol at, for example, the University of Cape Town because no provision has as yet been made for his course of study at his own university, the University of Cape Town is not obliged to enrol that student. They still have the discretionary power to decide whether they want him or not; whether he complies with their requirements for admission or not. I am not therefore depriving those universities of any discretionary powers which have been granted to them.

The hon. member for Durban North even spoke of additional powers which I am supposedly taking with this Bill. I should like to hear, when he speaks again during the other readings, what additional powers he means, because the power I am now being granted, which is now being made absolutely certain, is the power which all the Ministers of Education before me exercised in terms of the principal Act.

Why is this Bill necessary then?

The hon. member was probably not listening, or else he does not understand me very well. I have just explained now that one legal opinion is that the Minister does not have the power to prescribe the course, and because I want to make that matter absolutely certain, I am coming forward with this Bill.

Another implication which arises out of the arguments of the hon. members opposite, is that the Minister, with these powers he is receiving, is supposedly standing in the way of students who want to study. I think the hon. member for Durban North asked what becomes of a non-White student who is studying at a White university and then wants to do post-graduate study. He stated it as if I would supposedly stand in the way of such a student studying further. Now I am asking: How can a Government, and the Minister of such a Government, which has in fact created all those possibilities for non-White students to come into their own, in the sphere of higher education as well, now bar the way for such a student? He asked me specifically what my criterion in this case is, what discretionary power I am going to exercise there and how I am going to exercise it. I want to tell him what I also said in the Other Place, i.e. that if a non-White student wants to enrol for a course of study for which provision has not yet been made at the university of his own race group, I feel morally obliged to help that student and to try to allow him to enrol at a university which does in fact offer him those possibilities. If I did not do that, I would be unfaithful to the principles of my party, which state that we must help these people, because alone we Whites cannot bear the burdens of the entire country. We must train those people so that they can help to carry the burdens of their own people. That is why I am not standing in the way of such a student. I am there to help him.

The hon. member for Berea referred to all the faculties and courses of study which do not yet exist at universities for non-Whites. That is the case, but I want to ask the hon. member how many faculties the University of Natal, Stellenbosch, Witwatersrand or any of the other universities, had when they started? Surely one must crawl before one can walk. These universities also began on a small scale and made wonderful progress. They will continue to progress with the help of this side of the House. We shall in time to come see to it that more and more facilities are established for these students. If a student wants to enrol for a course which does not exist there, we shall help him in another way even if this means enrolling him at a university for Whites. In this connection the numbers have already been mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston.

The hon. member for Berea also referred to the training of non-Whites as teachers. In my life I have had a number of interesting experiences, even comical experiences, but I must honestly tell you that I never expected to live to see the day when the hon. member for Berea would stand up here in the House to advocate that non-White students should be trained in the medium of Afrikaans. This was a great surprise to me, and I hope that he will make progress with his campaign. The training of non-Whites as teachers is controlled by the various non-White departments. It is not a matter in regard to which I have any jurisdiction. If a student wants to do post-graduate study in education, and he wants to do so at a university for Whites, and the merits of the case justify this, I shall consider it on its merits. But the actual training of students for the teaching profession, is a matter which belongs under the various non-White departments.

I think that with this I have replied very rapidly to the specific points raised by hon. members. I am grateful to the speakers on my side of the House for the support they gave me. They also understood that there was not much they had to fight against, because the hon. members on the opposite side really felt that they did not have a good case and that they were obliged to oppose this proposal simply because they are opposed to the principle of the principal Act.

Motion put and the House divided:

AYES—74: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, T. N. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger. J. T.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, H. J. van Wyk, M. J. de la R. Venter and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—36: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cillie, H. van Z.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Raw, W. V.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taylor, C. D.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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.

The sole object of this Bill is to increase the maximum amount on which compensation is calculated at present, and this will result in increased benefits for the workers.

Sections 38 and 39 of the Act prescribe the rates of compensation and pension for disablement in respect of White, Coloured and Asiatic workmen.

In the case of temporary disablement, the compensation is in the form of periodical payments calculated at 75 per cent of the actual monthly earnings of the workman up to a maximum of R150 of such earnings. In the case of permanent disablement, a pension calculated on the same basis is payable. In other words, if a workman is at the maximum wage limit of R5 460 per year at the moment, the compensation and pension are not calculated on the full amount, but only on R1 800 per year or R150 per month.

The maximum periodic payment for temporary disablement and pension for permanent disablement therefore amount to R112-50 per month at the moment.

In the case of Bantu, sections 84 and 85 of the Act contain similar provisions in respect of temporary disablement.

As far as permanent disablement is concerned, Bantu do not receive pensions, but lump sum payments, which are, however, also calculated on their actual earnings up to a maximum amount in earnings of R150 per month as in the case of the other races. The maximum amount in earnings on which assessments are calculated is also R150 per month at present. Thus, if the workman earns R300 per month, only R150 of that is taken into account for levy purposes.

The last increase in the amount on which compensation is calculated was made in 1967. Since that time, however, wages have increased considerably, with the result that the ratio between compensation and earnings in the case of workmen earning more than R150 per month has become unrealistic.

Accordingly the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner recommended recently that the wage limit in the calculation of compensation be increased from R150 per month to R200. Levies will then be imposed on the same basis. All interested parties were consulted and supported the proposal. The actuary of the fund is also of the opinion that the amendments may safely be made.

In terms of the proposed amendments the maximum periodical payment for temporary disablement for all races and the pension for permanent disablement in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics are being increased from R112-50 per month to R150. Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill give effect to this.

In clause 4 of the Bill provision is made for the lump sum which a Bantu worker will receive for permanent disablement also to be calculated on his actual monthly earnings up to a maximum of R200 of such earnings. It is estimated that the proposed amendments will cost the fund approximately R1 100 000 annually.

The cost to Government departments and provincial administrations will amount to approximately R150 000 annually and to the Railways approximately R250 000, if it is accepted that the same percentage increase will apply as in the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund.

In clause 5 of the Bill it will be noticed that the increased compensation will apply only in respect of accidents which occur after the date on which the amending Bill comes into operation. This was also the position in regard to previous amendments of this nature. Such a step is unavoidable as it would be impracticable to impose levies with retrospective effect on employers whenever increased benefits come into operation, in order to obtain the necessary funds for accidents which occurred before the date on which the increased benefits come into operation. As hon. members know, all pensions granted since 1943 were recalculated and adjusted last year as a result of the amending Act of 1970. This additional expenditure was financed by the fund and other risk bearers from reserves which had been built up over the years. If the increased benefits were made retrospective it would cause financial embarrassment to such risk bearers, especially the two mutual societies, namely Rand Mutual, which undertakes workmen’s compensation insurance for the mines, and Federated Employers Mutual, which undertakes workmen’s compensation insurance for the building industry. This co-operation as regards the 1970 amendments has already been obtained, on the explicit understanding that such a retrospective adjustment shall not be regarded as a precedent for future increased benefits.

Even the Workmen’s Compensation Fund would not be financially able to carry the increased benefits with retrospective effect. Workmen also make no contributions to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund or to the mutual societies which undertake workmen’s compensation insurance. The fund’s revenue is derived from levies imposed on employers in accordance with the accident rate of each industry. In the light of the preceding considerations it has always been the policy not to make increased benefits retrospective. In the commissioner’s opinion, the proposed amendments will not result in increased levy rates. On the contrary, many of the levy rates have been reduced in recent years, in spite of increased benefits having come into operation.

Seeing that the amendments are aimed mainly at providing increased benefits to the workers, we trust they will meet with the approval of this House.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill. We take particular interest in this Bill in view of the fact that the principal Act of 1941 has proved to be a corner-stone in the social security of the workers in South Africa. This applies to all races who receive compensation as a result of injuries incurred during the course of their duties. If we look at the situation since 1941, we notice that a considerable number of amendments have been made to the principal Act, and we on this side of the House have in most cases supported these amendments, because we believed them to be improvements to the principal Act. On this occasion we on this side of the House once again give our support to this amending legislation. We believe that this amending legislation is necessary and is important. It is important to try to ensure that compensation keeps pace to an extent with increased costs that are incurred by the workman as a result of injury and the resultant loss of income. The various clauses of the Bill have been explained to the House by the hon. the Minister, i.e. those relating to the temporary total disablement of employees in terms of section 38 and 39 of the principal Act, and in the case of the Bantu, lump sum payments in terms of section 85 of the principal Act. Increasing this amount, which was previously the limiting factor, of R150 of the earnings to the proposed figure of R200 of such earnings is a modest increase. Perhaps it will be necessary at a later stage for the hon. the Minister to come back to this House once again to make an amendment to the principal Act. The various amendments which have been made in the past to section 38 of the principal Act were mainly as a result of legislation passed in 1967. In 1967 certain important improvements were made to the rates of benefits, but even after this short period from 1967, many of the amounts of compensation received are today proving to be inadequate due to the increase in the cost of living. This leads to the provision in clause 5 of this Bill, which clearly indicates that this improvement and the raising of the ceiling will only be applicable from a date to be fixed by the State President when this Bill becomes an Act and is promulgated. The hon. the Minister has indicated in this Bill by means of a proviso that any accidents that occur prior to that fixed date will not carry the benefit of the raising of the ceiling that is proposed in this legislation. We on this side of the House believe it is necessary for the hon. the Minister further to review his policy in this regard. We realize that there are important factors involved, like insurance, and the hon. the Minister has to be guided by the reports of the actuaries as far as the Accident Fund and the Special Reserve Fund are concerned. We know that the Minister has indicated that those persons who are receiving compensation at a low rate in terms of the benefits which were applicable at the time of the accident, have received some compensation as a result of contributions made from that Special Reserve Fund. However, this amending legislation once again creates the situation where the amendment is not to be retrospective in any way and unfortunately this will be to the detriment of workers who perhaps incur an injury at this very moment. I therefore hope that the hon. the Minister could perhaps give further information to the House as to the reasons behind clause 5, which restricts these improvements to the date to be fixed some time in the future by the State President in terms of that clause. Many of us who have dealt with cases concerning dependents, particularly of workmen who have lost their lives, have found that many of these people suffer hardship as a result of legislation not being made retrospective. I know that it is not competent for me at this stage to discuss this matter in any detail as it affects the principal Act mainly, but the question before us is whether this type of legislation should not be made retrospective in some manner or form. That is why it is a pity that in clause 5 it is specifically stated that this measure will not be retrospective.

I also think the hon. the Minister can give us a little more information as regards the effect on the fund of these increased benefits that will come into effect for persons who will suffer injury in the future. If one looks at the latest available figures one sees that at the end of December, 1970, the Accident Fund stood at R52 300 000. We know that there has been a reduction of the contributions paid by employers in certain instances, but it would appear that the fund is in a very strong position.

However, we would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he estimates the effect will be on the fund. During the course of his speech he has mentioned that the actuaries are satisfied that the fund will be able to withstand any increased expenditure as far as these benefits are concerned, whether it be by pension or by lump sum payments. I think it is perhaps necessary for the hon. the Minister to provide this House with the additional information as to exactly what will be involved and what the effect will be on the actual fund, particularly with the situation where the revenue from contributions have increased quite considerably in recent times. As a result of legislation passed in 1967, the income ceiling limits for workmen who enjoy the protection of this Act were further raised from R3 120 to R5 460.

Therefore, in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill, we ask for additional information and we ask that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to the whole aspect of the question of retrospective application of improved benefits for these workmen. We believe that this is important legislation, legislation which workmen regard as vital to their security in view of the fact that they will be able to receive compensation which in some instances will be more or less commensurate with their loss of income as a result of such disablement, or in the case of their dependents, where the loss of the breadwinner is the main tragedy that is involved in such an accident. With these few words we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the problem with amending Bills of this nature, in terms of which benefits are granted as from a certain date, is always that one’s sympathy demands that they should be retrospective. It is not only the Opposition that wants this. Let me tell you, Sir, that I personally should like to have that. My side would like this to be retrospective, but we are concerned here with a fund which is maintained by the employers. The State contributes nothing and the employees contribute nothing towards this fund. It is exclusively the employers who contribute. In view of this, the employers surely have a right to submit to us, through the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, their requests in regard to the administration of that fund. These people have also been very accommodating, but this fund, their contributions and their application are, after all, based on an understanding which we, as the State administration, have with them. The understanding boils down to this, that we should not tax them by way of levies and increased benefits for periods and in respect of workers who were in service before they themselves were contributors. The approach is that we should not tax them excessively in respect of persons who were in service years ago. Last year, in the case of the amendment to make it retrospective to 1943, we did in fact hold consultations with these people, and they displayed a very accommodating attitude at the time. Because the workers had received benefits on such a limited scale since the 1943 Act, we asked them whether they could not make an exception in that case as regards making it retrospective. They agreed, but once again on the very explicit understanding that we should not regard the concession that they made last year in respect of those who benefited in terms of the 1943 Act as a precedent for the future. We then had to give that undertaking. I expressed my appreciation in this House to the employers and also to these mutual groups I have mentioned as being contributors, who must themselves bear responsibility for their concession. I also gave them the assurance that we, as the Government, would not hold them to that as a pattern for the future. For that reason I am afraid that I am bound to that understanding and to that character of this fund, in spite of all our sympathy. As I mentioned in my speech, this fund must pay out an extra R1 110 000 in respect of this. It is not the intention that the levy rates should be affected by that, and in spite of all my sympathy, it is not possible, within the framework of this fund’s capacity, to make this retrospective. I really hope that we shall appreciate the benefits embodied here as being the best that can be granted at this stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.