Mr. Speaker, I move—

I am moving this motion in order to give effect to a unanimous resolution of the Committee. Although the Committee has reached an advanced stage as far as hearing evidence is concerned, it deems it desirable to take further evidence in respect of certain aspects of its investigation. It also wants to afford the Select Committee staff an opportunity of processing and making available to members of the Committee such evidence as has already been submitted. Naturally the Committee had to sit long hours in an attempt to report within the time laid down, with the result that the staff, who have to deal with other committee and Hansard work as well, could not keep up. Besides, the Committee itself still has to study the evidence given, as well as all the papers submitted together with it, in order to be able to prepare a report. In terms of the original instruction by the House, the Committee has to report before tomorrow, but under the circumstances the Committee regrets that it necessarily has to ask for an extension of time. Hence this motion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since we are now discussing this legislation in its last stage, I want to inform the hon. the Minister that nothing happened during the previous stages which in any way caused the attitude of this side of the House to change. I must say that we are rather disappointed with the attitude the hon. the Minister adopted in regard to this legislation, for the simple reason that we do not think that the subdivision of agricultural land is such a great problem as the hon. the Minister tries to make it out to be. We are more inclined to believe that if there is one thing which the modern farmer realizes, it is the fact that he should not subdivide his land in such a way that any of his heirs will find it difficult to make a livelihood from any portion of that land. As far as we are concerned, therefore, we think that the solution to this problem does not lie in restricting the farmer of South Africa to any further extent than he is already being restricted by legislation which stands on our Statute Book or by powers which were or are in the hands of the provinces to deal with this matter.

The hon. the Minister introduced this legislation to extend his powers in this respect even further; in other words, to give himself further powers of deciding whether or not a farmer may subdivide his land. It is not only in that respect that the Minister went further; he also took additional powers to be able to say how that land may be utilized in future. In the second place the hon. the Minister even went so far as to accept an amendment moved by one of the hon. members on that side so that it may also be provided whether subdivision can take place or not in regard to land of a farmer who may have agricultural land in a municipal area.

I think that the effect of the clause in question will not only restrict township or residential area expansion in certain towns, but I also think that the hon. the Minister will in future, through his actions, prevent certain farmers who own such land from obtaining from such land what they would have liked to obtain from it. Many of the people who own this type of land may be in a position that it is not very good agricultural land and that they cannot obtain a decent dividend on their capital, but as a result of the power which the hon. the Minister will have in terms of clause 1, he can prevent such a man from obtaining a decent realization of his capital. The effect of this clause will also be that where a farmer thought of the future and envisaged a new development on that land, the Minister will be able to determine that the development of that land will lie only in the direction of agriculture. As a result of clause 1 the hon. the Minister will cause even the heirs of such a farmer to be given a raw deal, because they will not be able to use that land for township expansion or for industrial purposes because that hon. gentleman thinks that that land should be used only for agricultural purposes.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not agree that if he has that power in his hands, it is similar to a position where any other Minister takes the power to determine the future of a person, depending on whether he has shares, and how many garages, shops or flats he owns. This hon. Minister will, with this step, cause even people who thought that they could in due course build up a good estate to discover at a later stage that that estate had decreased considerably.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister, who is always pointing out and telling us how much sympathy he has for the small farmers of South Africa, to tell us whether this is an example of sympathy with and commiseration for the small farmers in this country. If the hon. the Minister had really been sympathetic towards them, he would not have been prepared to interfere in this way with the rights and privileges of these people. I am referring to clause 3, in regard to which there was a long altercation during the Committee Stage in this House, and also to clause 4. Is the hon. gentleman aware that previously it was in the hands of the local authorities and the provincial authorities to say in what direction town expansion could take place? This hon. gentleman is now going to say to those people that they cannot subdivide land without his permission if they should want it for town expansion. This is totally unnecessary, and the hon. the Minister can cause the development to go in a specific direction merely because he is of the opinion that if it were to go in another direction, it would include good agricultural land. This will once again cause the farmer who has good agricultural land to be placed in a weaker position than the man who has poorer agricultural land. This means further interference in the future of the farmer who is in the fortunate position that he is near an urban or peri-urban area where development is taking place daily. This legislation also means that the hon. gentleman can prescribe the conditions under which the subdivision of land may take place. In other words, it depends on him. If he says that that land cannot be used for a brick factory, or if he says that a large poultry farm cannot be established on 15 or 20 acres, then it will not be possible to do these things. It will all therefore depend on the goodwill of that hon. gentleman.

You are not able to do that at all today.

We on this side of the House are of the opinion that this is not a power which a Minister of Agriculture ought to have. As much freedom as possible in this respect should be given to the farmer of South Africa. Not only has the hon. the Minister restricted the powers and the functions of the local and the provincial authorities, he has gone even further. The hon. gentleman has seen fit, in clause 10, to deprive the provincial authorities of another power they used to have. They were able to restrict me if I wanted to subdivide land into sections smaller than 25 morgen. If I wanted to subdivide into larger pieces than that, I did not need their approval at all. Now the hon. gentleman comes and deletes that provision. That means that if I wanted to subdivide land into larger sections than 25 morgen, I must go to that authority to obtain approval for that. No reasons, no acceptable reasons, no well-considered arguments have been advanced from the side of those hon. gentlemen as to why these powers are necessary today. The only conclusion we on this side can arrive at is that the hon. gentlemen are not satisfied with the direction in which the agricultural industry is going today and that the hon. the Minister would like to have further powers in this respect. Why is it necessary for him to take powers in this respect? If the hon. gentleman would rather ensure that the agricultural industry in South Africa is a paying concern, there would be no reason why agricultural land should be subdivided. If the farmer makes a decent profit, the chances that he will want to subdivide will be much less than the chances of that are today with the present circumstances in the agricultural industry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to that kind of thing rather. Then he will keep the farmers on their land; then the farmer will not want to make extra money from his land. If the hon. the Minister sees to it that the profit basis in agriculture and the remunerativeness of the agricultural industry rises, he will find that everyone will be satisfied with their land, regardless of the size. That is why we object to the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, while we are dealing with the Third Reading debate of this important measure which is now before the House, the hon. member for Newton Park comes once again with an argument in which he expresses his dissatisfaction with the contents of this measure. It would seem as if the hon. Opposition has not, during the past decade and more, taken stock of the farming industry in South Africa. I want to aver that with the Third Reading of this measure we shall have reached a milestone in respect of the control over the subdivision of agricultural land. I want to tell the hon. member that if he had gone about in this country with his eyes open during the past few decades he would have seen how a great deal of good agricultural land, which was valuable to the agricultural industry, was being subdivided into small units. What did this lead to? It led to farming being practised on small units which were totally uneconomic, so much so that most of the occupants of those small subdivided units adjoining our towns and cities could not make a good livelihood. The hon. Opposition always poses as the friend of the farmer, but here it is opposing a measure the precise purpose of which is to prevent that position in which many farmers find themselves as a result of subdivision. With all the laws the hon. the Minister has up to this stage had at his disposal, we were still not able in any way to prevent or counteract this uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land. What does the Opposition want? Do they want this situation— which became rampant not only in the peri-urban areas but everywhere in the country, where people perhaps out of ignorance and perhaps for reasons of sentiment, made subdivision possible by way of testamentary disposition and in that way created precisely the position in which so many of our small farmers have found themselves and were therefore not able to make an economic existence—to continue? That hon. member and his party object to these powers being bestowed on to the hon. the Minister. But who else can exercize control over this matter of the subdivision of land? The hon. Opposition does not have the courage to stand up and say that it should be left in the hands of a council or of officials. They will not do that; they simply criticize this legislation because they begrudge the Minister the power to be able to act when it is absolutely necessary. I have already said that conditions such as are discernible throughout the entire country today are sufficient proof that a stop should be put to this situation and that no further uneconomic subdivision of agricultural land should be allowed. That hon. member must also bear in mind that what is involved is not always the size of the unit, for even a small unit can be an economic one for a small farmer. In these cases the hon. the Minister must exercise his discretion, on the advice of his department. It is absolutely essential that he should have this discretionary power. In the very first clause of this Bill it is stated very clearly that what is involved here is all land, with the exception of certain land. A great fuss was kicked up here about land which belongs to city councils, municipal councils and other councils, but when I look at clause 1 I can state quite unequivocally that this matter refers specifically to all land except land which falls under such councils. The argument advanced by hon. members opposite during the Second Reading and Committee Stage, i.e. that the Minister can interfere in a municipal area, with regard to the subdivision of land, is not the actual position as contained in this Bill. In clause 1 land which is situated “in the area of jurisdiction of a municipal council, city council, town council, village council, village management board, village management council, local board, health board or health committee” etc., is excluded from the provisions of this Bill. This deals therefore with agricultural land and not with land within a municipal area, or other land. For everyone who has the interests of agriculture at heart, there is ample proof of the threatening dangers which have already to a large extent impoverished many of our small farmers.

At the end of his speech the hon. member also stated that the hon. the Minister, and of course the Government as well, should ensure that the profits of the individual small farmer should be such that he can gain a good livelihood. I should like to hear from the hon. Opposition what powers and methods one can apply, whether it is price manipulation or anything else for that matter, so that small farmers can be helped to farm in such a way that they will be able to make a profit. It is impossible for a Government or a department to ensure this. They can help with information and to a certain extent with price manipulation, but then it is not yet an indisputable fact that the small farmer will in fact be able to make a decent living on such a unit. In this case I could mention examples. There are cases of people who began farming on large economic units, which they had inherited, and then sold those properties after a few years because the liabilities had become too heavy. I also know about units which were declared uneconomic units, and where those farmers, after a few years, were farming so progressively on those so-called uneconomic units that they were able to purchase further units. The argument based on the supposition that an agricultural unit is uneconomic purely because of its size is really a very poor argument. It is not the exclusive reason. That is why the hon. the Minister and his department can exercize their discretion, and they have these powers through this measure. In clause 4, to which hon. members on the opposite side objected so vehemently, it is quite definitely stated that certain powers shall be bestowed on the Minister. In terms of that clause he receives discretionary powers. He may determine whether or not a unit may be subdivided and he may also determine for what purpose that unit may be used. These are powers which are necessary today. This is for the guidance of the person who wants to continue a practice on a certain unit. I do not want to take up much of the time of this House. However, I am certain that contrary to what the hon. member for Newton Park asserted here this afternoon, the agriculturists and the farmers in South Africa will be greatful to the Government for the control which is being taken here today and the powers which are being bestowed on to the hon. the Minister. These powers will not be applied in a cruel and unreasoning way, but will be exercized after consultation, and taking into consideration the circumstances. We welcome this legislation and think that it will save the small farmers from a very difficult time in future. This guidance which they need is indispensible and it will prevent agricultural land, which is only becoming increasingly scarce and increasingly expensive, from being subdivided indiscriminately in future by ignorant and perhaps wilful persons to the detriment of the agricultural industry. We are very grateful that we have progressed to this stage with this legislation which is now on the point of being passed.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House reject the contention that we are not concerned with the proper use of agricultural land. We have shown, not only in the present debate, but also in many other debates in this House, that we have not only sound and practical policies for the future of farming in South Africa, but policies which also will provide a far better future for the farmers of South Africa than those of that side of the House. We are opposed to this legislation, not because we are in favour of uneconomic use of agricultural land—we have made that clear —but because it is bad legislation. It has already been proved to be bad legislation by the very fact that the original Act, passed only about 18 months ago, has had to be amended again this year in several very important respects. I do not wish to go into details. We have already debated the amendments in the previous stages of this legislation. We pointed out that it was not correct to describe these amendments, as did the hon. the Deputy Minister, as merely to remove a few administrative problems.

There are some fundamental changes effected by this Bill. First of all, the Minister is being given the power, not only to decide on applications to subdivide agricultural land, but also to determine how the land which he allows to be subdivided shall be used and for what purpose. This legislation is, in our opinion, bad, because it does not deal with the fundamental problem which the Government wished to deal with in the original Act, namely the uneconomic subdivision of land. The Government was unable to find a proper formula for this problem, and therefore brought in a Bill simply giving blanket powers to the hon. the Minister to deal with applications as he chooses. I want to ask the hon. member for Harrismith who has just sat down, whether he and the farmers in his area are satisfied that the hon. the Minister should have complete discretion in regard to applications for subdivision of agricultural land, without Parliament having set any norms or bases upon which to decide an application of this sort. He is entirely free to grant one application and to refuse another on the same basis if he wants to do so, and he could not be challenged. It is bad legislation, furthermore, because it gives the hon. the Deputy Minister a complete and unfettered discretion. There is no power of appeal to any authority of any sort. The Minister’s decision is final.

I want to point out to the hon. member for Harrismith that he is quite wrong in suggesting that the Bill excludes all land under the jurisdiction of local authorities. He has obviously overlooked the very important amendment which was introduced by a member on his own side of the House, namely the hon. member for False Bay, and which was accepted by the Government. If he looks at the Bill which is now before him, as it has been amended during the previous stages, he will see the exclusion which now appears at the end of paragraph (a) of the definition of “agricultural land”. That means that the Minister now has the power to bring back into the definition of “agricultural land” any land whatsoever which he chooses within local authority areas. I made the case, and I repeat it briefly at this stage, that this is going to place local authorities in the position where they will not be able to finalize any plans satisfactorily because at any time this Minister can take out of their local authorities any land he chooses and declare that to be agricultural land under his control.

There are other aspects of this Bill to which we have strong objections. We have made them clear during the previous stages of this legislation, and I do not wish to labour the point at this stage. However, I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will be able to tell us something regarding the point which I discussed with him in the Committee Stage, namely the question of the registration of servitudes. I believe that in the case of servitudes which are in the process of being registered, a similar provision to that contained in section 2 (f) of the original Act should apply. I should like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he has given this matter consideration and what his attitude is in this connection.

In conclusion I wish merely to repeat that we do not regard this Bill as one which merely introduces a few administrative changes. We believe they are fundamental changes and we have strong objection to these. We believe that this in no way improves the original Bill, to which we had strong objections. On the contrary, we believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister and this House will find that the amendments which are being introduced will create many new problems. I predict that the Government will be coming to this House to further amend this Act, if not next year, then the year thereafter.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I just want to inform the hon. member for Musgrave that, with regard to the suggestion which he put forward in respect of servitudes, we are discussing the position with the law advisers to see whether we can give effect to this. If it does appear to be the case, and if it is in any way practicable, we shall move the necessary amendment in the Other Place. In my opinion it seems that we will in fact be able to do this.

I now want to reply briefly to those two hon. members. The hon. member for Newton Park asked: “What about the heirs?” Sir, we thrashed out this entire position in the Second Reading. The hon. member claims that the Minister of Agriculture wants powers to enable him to say how land may be utilized. These are all popular stories, which go down well outside Parliament where people are not always well-informed. However, let us take the case of a piece of land which is under irrigation, situated near a town, and where his friends, the township developers, want to utilize that land. The hon. member was speaking for the township developers. Sir, I made up my mind that I would not become angry; I am going to remain perfectly calm. The township developer says, for example, to the owner of that land : “I offer you R2 000 per morgen.” Now, say that is the only land below a dam near that town which can be irrigated. Adjoining it lies broken country which cannot be irrigated. It is so unthinkable now that a person should have the power to say to that owner: “You have irrigation land; we can utilise the water from that dam only on that specific piece of land.” And is it so unthinkable to say to the township developer : “Plan your development just a little further away.” The hon. member said that with this legislation we were going to cause delays with the establishment of residential areas. Our aim is in fact not to do this. The hon. member said a person will now have to come and ask the Minister for permission if he wants to subdivide 10 morgen on which to start a poultry farm. But, until an hour ago, before the ratification of the Act, there was no authorization in terms of which he could subdivide 10 morgen, because we prohibited this in 1970. The hon. member for Musgrave said that the fact that we have to amend this legislation after 18 months is in fact proof of how unpractical it is. But with what purpose do we want to amend that Act? It is because we have now applied it in practice. I read out to hon. members the list of appeals we had in this connection. There were only a small number of people who asked the Minister to give a decision. Most of those cases we approved. Suppose a person comes along to the Minister and says that he wants to establish a poultry farm, or a quarry, or a filling station, and he wants to subdivide half a morgen in the veld for that purpose; we have no power to allow this.

But you can also refuse that request now.

Yes, but previously we were not able to do this at all. There was a need for this; under the province they were able to subdivide 25 morgen. We want to streamline the position by inserting this clause, but the hon. member for Newton Park refers time and again to the additional powers we are taking. I have said that a good government is a government which not only seeks popularity but which sees to it that we distribute the land in the correct manner. Why may we not then have the right to give a decision in this regard? Mention was made of delays. But hon. members can return next year and tell us where we cause delays. The Department of Agricultural Technical Services goes out of its way, with the co-operation of the Surveyor-General, to dispose of applications for subdivision as quickly as possible. When an application is received, a decision is given within a month as to whether subdivision may or may not be applied. We try to cause no delays as far as this matter is concerned.

The hon. member also referred to the small farmer. He thought I was posing as the champion of the small farmer. I have told the hon. member before that if he would rather advocate that the farmer should receive a decent price for his produce, we would have no problems in regard to uneconomic units. That is the aspirant Deputy Minister of Agriculture! Now he says to me: Rather give the farmer a decent price for his produce. But do you know, Sir, since I have been sitting in this House of Assembly, that hon. member has never yet given me his opinion in regard to the price of a bag of wheat or a bag of maize. To this day I have not yet heard him say what it should be. I asked the hon. member every year: “Tell me, what is your price for maize?” Sir, he must deal very carefully with the man who buys the maize and also with the man who produces the maize.

Production costs plus.

But then the hon. member must determine the “plus” and give me the figure. The hon. member must tell me what the price is. It will be heavenly if I can go to the farmers and say: “Do you know, the United Party says this is the price of wheat or the price of meat or any agricultural produce.” It is easy to sit back in your bench there if you know you are not going to take over the government of the country. It is easy then to say: “Give the farmers a decent price.” If I take stock of the standpoint of the Government in regard to these small farmers, I see what the position today is in respect of financial aid. That hon. member is not listening. He has said to me already: “Is it not a mistake for the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Board to concentrate on allowing agricultural credit of as much as R30 million in one year in amounts of R50 000 and R60 000?” The State gives no assistance to the man who is a big, well-to-do, prosperous farmer; that man will simply have to go to the commercial banks. The hon. member said that he had thought we were sympathetic towards the small farmer. I say again that this is the man whom we want to protect in agriculture.

Sir, I want to conclude with this idea: I am not acting here in the interests of people who want to make money, people like township developers and land speculators who want to buy up land and then subdivide it into five or 10 morgen plots in order to enrich themselves. I am not prepared to act on their behalf. Those are the people whom that hon. member wants to protect, and that is why we are sitting on different sides of the House. My clients are the small farmers; that is the man whom I want to protect.

You want to keep them poor.

No, I do not. Our entire mode of action is in fact aimed at consolidating their land; at getting larger units for them. Sir, this Bill was initiated by the five agricultural unions of our country. Every province, including South-West Africa, said to us: “Please give us a law to prevent the land from being subdivided into uneconomic pieces from which people are unable to make a livelihood.” It is sometimes not popular to say “No”, but a good father must sometimes be able to say “No” to his children. If he is for ever saying “Yes”, then you subsequently have a nation which looks like hon. members who are sitting on that side of the House. We must act firmly, and sometimes say “No”, even if it makes us unpopular for that moment. The South African Agricultural Union has thanked us repeatedly for this legislation. Hon. members on that side can try as much as they like to make as much political capital out of this matter as they can; they will achieve nothing.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and W. L. D. M. Venter.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1970 the National War Fund (1939-1945) and the Governor-General’s Fund (1914-1918) were amalgamated in terms of the National War Fund Act, 1970 (Act No.81 of 1970), under the name “National War Fund”. This amalgamation was brought about mainly because the two old funds had common objects and were administered parallel to each other. As a result of the amalgamation the collateral administration was eliminated, which brought about simplification and particularly saving.

The amalgamation of the two former funds meant that the title deeds of the fixed property and mortgages registered in favour of the National War Fund (1939-1945) had to be suitably endorsed in favour of the new fund. The Registrars of Deeds of the various provinces disagree in their interpretations of the provisions of section 1 (3) (a) of the National War Fund Act, 1970. Some of them are of the opinion that those provisions empower them to endorse the title deeds concerned in the name of the new fund without further ado, while others take the view that the said provisions are not applicable to title deeds. Of course, it was never the intention that the new fund should incur transfer duties and transfer costs anew in having the properties it acquired as successor in title of the National War Fund (1939-1945) registered in its name. Accordingly the amendment is being made in order to bridge this problem. It has the approval of the new fund. The Governor-General’s Fund (1914-1918) possessed no immovable property and therefore it is not necessary to extend the proposed amendment to assets of that fund.

In the proposed section 1A (2) it is made clear, as is customary, that no fees shall be payable in respect of any substitution of the name of the National War Fund (1939-1945).

This, Mr. Speaker, is a full explanation of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill that is now before the House is, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, merely of an administrative nature and flows direct from the amending legislation which was adopted in 1970. The amending legislation of 1970, which ultimately became Act 81 of 1970, amalgamated the Governor-General’s War Fund and the National War Fund in respect of the two major world wars. It was a measure which received the support of this side of the House, because we realized that the Governor-General’s War Fund was then reaching a stage where it would be advisable for it to be amalgamated with the National War Fund of the 1939-’45 World War.

We on this side of the House have no objection to the measure which is now before us. It is one which has become necessary mainly because of an omission, perhaps, when the 1970 legislation was passed by this House. It is noted that payment of transfer fees and stamp duty will not be required in terms of this legislation, whereby the title deeds will be altered and registered merely in the name of the National War Fund.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has also indicated, in answer to the one query which we had in mind, i.e. in connection with the position of any property or any title deeds held in the name of the Governor-General’s War Fund, that there are no deeds standing in the name of the old Governor-General’s War Fund and therefore it is not necessary for that fund to be included in this amending legislation. We on this side of the House have pleasure in supporting this measure, which is in the interests of the National War Fund, which is doing such a great deal of good for ex-servicemen.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for supporting this measure on behalf of the Opposition. I do not think it is really necessary for me to elaborate any further on any aspect of this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is not contentious. As is indicated by its long title, this is an essential piece of legislation to legalize certain marriages.

The Bill contains two proposals for the amendment of the Marriage Act, 1961, proposals aimed at preventing marriages from being invalid as a result of merely technical irregularities. The undesirable consequences for the parties to the marriage and for their children later on when their marriage is not valid, need not be outlined to hon. members. You are all familiar with them. Just think of the consequences for the children born from a marriage which subsequently proves to be invalid; the children are then in the position that they are illegitimate children. The Bill which is now before the House for its consideration is aimed at preventing these serious consequences for people and their children when the marriage concerned does not meet some requirement of minor importance.

Before I proceed to explain the contents of the Bill I would like to mention by way of introduction that the Act which now stands to be amended, the Marriage Act, 1961, controls the solemnization of marriages in South Africa and specifies the requirements which must be met by parties desiring to be joined in matrimony. It is common knowledge that in terms of these requirements parties desiring to be married have to—

before they could be joined in matrimony. Hon. members will remember that these prerequisites for a marriage were abolished by the Marriage Amendment Act of 1970. This Act recently came into force, on 1st February, 1972, and now it is no longer necessary for parties intending to be married to cause banns to be published, or to cause a notice of intention to marry to be published, or to obtain a special marriage licence before they may be married.

†Mr. Speaker, clause 1 of the Bill before the House deals with an amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act, 1961.

Section 22 of the Marriage Act, 1961, as it now reads, is to the effect that:

1. (a) if an error has been made by one of the parties to a marriage; or
2. (b) if an error, omission or oversight has been made by any person;

in interpreting the section, or in carrying out the section, in so far as the section provides for the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry, or for the issue of a special marriage licence, such error, omission or oversight shall not invalidate the marriage, provided the marriage has in every other respect been solemnized in accordance with the provisions of the Marriage Act. In other words, section 22 of the Marriage Act as it now reads provides for the condonation of errors made in the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry or in the issue of a special marriage licence.

However, on two occasions the Supreme Court has determined that the only errors that can be condoned in terms of section 22 are those errors that have been made because there has been an erroneous interpretation of the Marriage Act in so far as the Act provides for the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry, or the issue of a special marriage licence. This means that the parties to a marriage must actually have read the provisions of the Marriage Act and have misunderstood such provisions. There are many errors which do not result from a wrong interpretation of the Marriage Act. Rather are the errors that are usually made, errors such as wrong names stated in banns to marry, or names omitted from banns, or omissions to publish a notice of intention to marry in the district where one of the parties resides, or an omission to publish banns at all. From the decisions of the Supreme Court to which I referred, it follows that these errors which are of a purely technical nature cannot be condoned, with the resultant effect that the marriages in respect of which these errors were made are invalid with all the serious and unpleasant results for the parties and their children which follow from such invalid marriages.

Hon. members will no doubt agree with me that this is a very undesirable state of affairs. It is for this reason that in clause one of the Bill now before the House, provision is made for the amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act.

The proposed amendment is designed to ensure that a marriage shall not be invalidated when errors of the kind I have described have been made in the publication of banns or notice of intention to marry or the issue of a special marriage licence. After the Bill has become law these purely technical errors will no longer have the result of invalidating marriages with all the undesirable consequences flowing from invalid marriages. Hon. members will have noticed that the present proviso to section 22 of the Marriage Act is extended. The proviso now proposed is to the effect that the technical errors to which I referred will be condoned not only—

1. (1) provided there was no other impediment to the marriage, but also
2. (2) provided the marriage has not been dissolved or declared invalid by a competent court, and
3. (3) provided that neither of the parties to such marriage has after such marriage and during the life of the other, already lawfully married another.

The reason for this proposed extension of the present proviso to section 22 of the Marriage Act is to ensure that a marriage in respect of which the errors I have described earlier, have been made but which errors have in view of the proposed amended provisions of section 22 of the Marriage Act been condoned, shall not be regarded as valid when the circumstances outlined in the proviso are present.

Hon. members will doubtless have noticed further that the proposed amendment of section 22 of the Marriage Act is couched in the past tense. The reason for this is, as I have explained at the beginning of my speech, that the necessity to publish banns or notice of intention to marry or to take out a special marriage licence has been abolished as from the 1st February, 1972, and is no longer a prerequisite to contracting a marriage.

*I shall now proceed to explain the contents of clause 2 of the Bill. I have already explained that the provisions of the Marriage Amendment Bill, 1970, came into force as from 1st February, 1972. One of the provisions of this Amendment Act is that not only magistrates, but ministers too, must now follow the prescribed formula when solemnizing a marriage. In the past, ministers were allowed to follow only the formula of their church when solemnizing a marriage, but now they have to follow the prescribed formula, in the same way that magistrates do. They can do this in addition to the formula of their church. The prescribed formula reads as follows (in Afrikaans)—

and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the said marriage officer shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words—

†For the convenience of hon. English-speaking members, I repeat the prescribed formula in English.

Do not worry, I do not accept your proposal in either language.

It reads—

and thereupon the parties shall give each other the right hand and the said marriage officer shall declare the marriage solemnized in the following words—

There can be no doubt that all the members now understand what I mean.

*It is possible that the magistrates and other officials who acted as marriage officers in the past did not follow the prescribed marriage formulary closely in all cases, although the number of cases must be small.

It is also probable, now that all marriage officers have to follow the prescribed marriage formula, that it may happen more often that the prescribed marriage formula is not closely followed.

It may also have happened in the past that parties intending to be married, in the case of marriages before magistrates, may have omitted to give each other the right hand, or may have been unable to do so because of a physical handicap.

These irregularities which were committed or may be committed in good faith now cause the marriage concerned to be invalid, with all the undesirable consequences arising from such an invalid marriage for the parties and their children.

To prevent a marriage from being invalid as a result of such irregularities it is proposed, by the amendment of section 30 of the Marriage Act, 1961, by the addition of subsection (3), to arrange for all marriages prejudiced by such irregularities to be valid and binding, providing that (1) the marriage concerned was otherwise lawfully contracted, (2) it has not been dissolved or declared invalid in the meantime, and (3) neither of the parties have after their marriage contracted another marriage in the meantime.

This ensures, as in the case of technical errors in the publication of banns, that marriages will not be invalid as a result of merely technical errors in the following of the prescribed formula. But here, too, the provisos which I dealt with during the explanation of clause I will be applicable.

Before concluding I would like to give hon. members the assurance that the provisions of the Bill in no way affect the basic requirements for contracting a valid marriage. One of these basic requirements for a valid marriage is the requirement that in the case of minors wishing to marry the permission of their parents is required.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill comes as no surprise to us on this side of the House. We warned the Government that this legislation would be necessary when the 1970 Bill was introduced; we warned the Government because, as is their wont, they were trying to legislate for every facet of life without any opportunity of pragmatism and without any manoeuvrability in the laws which they enact. This is the difficulty with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is now faced, namely the rigidity of the 1970 legislation in regard to the formula. I want to remind the House, if I may, shortly of one or two remarks which I made at the time when the same legislation was debated in 1970. I refer to Hansard, Vol. 29, col. 818 of the 31st July, 1970, where I said the following—

That is what we on this side of the House offered to the Government in 1970, but it fell on deaf ears or had unwilling listeners and now we have this legislation. We will support it, because we believe it is necessary.

Did you not put any amendment at the time?

We raised the matter because we believed that it was not necessary to have the ipsissima verba. If the hon. member for Potchefstroom wishes to abdicate the seats on that side of the House and give them over to us, we will legislate and do the drafting for him. Obviously we have first of all the retrospective effect of this legislation which again we realize as being necessary. I want to ask the Minister about one matter, because the rigidity remains and this is merely a condonation of non-conforming with the rigidity, with the ipsissima verba, namely who is going to apply the test as to whether or not the mistake was made in good faith? This opens up a wide area of collusion to which I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has not given consideration. If two spouses find that their marriage is not working and if they recollect that they did not put right hand into right hand they can say that they did that deliberately because they did not want to be married, that they will save the expense of a divorce and that their marriage is null and void. They will then go off, get married elsewhere and this Bill will then not apply to them. They are then single, the marriage is annulled by agreement between the two parties, that their non-conforming with the specific requirements was not in good faith and that it was done deliberately. Who is to test this? This is the problem which faces this Government over and over again, because of its method of legislation. They want to legislate for every movement and act of our human relationships. There was no problem when the church formalities were used and when each church was able to use its ordinary formula. I hope the hon. the Minister of the Interior will give consideration to the question whether we really should keep on our Statute Book the rigidity of the 1970 legislation in so far as the form of marriage is concerned.

There is another point which I wish to raise. I would have been tempted to press it if I were of the opposite sex. My curiosity has overcome me and I would like to know the number of cases that make it necessary for this legislation to be retrospective. I take it that the hon. the Minister will observe the privacy, no doubt, to which the couples concerned are entitled, and that he would not disclose to me why it is necessary to make this legislation retrospective. But obviously cases have occurred. He referred to two Supreme Court cases and, no doubt, there must be others.

In supporting this measure, I want to say that it is a stopgap measure and that serious consideration should be given by the hon. the Minister to a reversion back to the form whereby the churches themselves could use their normal marriage procedures with the necessary formalities, signatures and declaration of marriage which normally apply. One attends church weddings and one is used to the ceremony in one’s own particular denomination or church. Now one suddenly finds a minister in a religious service switching over to the not very poetic words which us lawyers sometimes use to express a cold contract. That is suddenly introduced into a marriage service in the church. It does introduce somewhat of a jarring note. As I say, we will support this measure, but we believe that further consideration should be given as to whether the 1970 legislation should not be drastically amended to conform to what we ourselves suggested should be done when the measure was first introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the standpoint adopted this afternoon by the hon. member. I am also aware that in the 1970 debate he raised and debated the point which he mentioned today as a serious matter. I just want to mention in passing that it is a pity, since he was in such earnest about this, that he did not at the time introduce an amendment which would have placed his standpoint more clearly on record. However, I appreciate his standpoint, but I should also like, on this occasion, to mention the name of the person whom I think was the person actually responsible for the legislation we have before us today, in co-operation with the hon. the Minister and the Department of the Interior, i.e. Prof. F. J. van Zyl of the University of Port Elizabeth, who had for more than two years, even before the 1970 legislation, been submitting representations to us in regard to the matters which are before us today. It does one good to know that there are persons outside as well who take such an interest in this legislative assembly as to make such a positive contribution to good legislation and good administration. It is true that the existing legislation provides that failure to comply with the preliminary requirements does not necessarily invalidate the marriage, particularly if this was owing to an error committed in good faith by either of the parties to such marriage—I am referring to the interpretation of those provisions, i.e. the preceding provisions in the section—or secondly, an error, omission or oversight of any person who made any such publication or issued a special licence, as it is stated in the Act.

In order just to amplify this, I want to mention a few reasons why it is essential that this legislation should be before the House today. The fact of the matter is that a marriage could only be declared to be valid if a bona fide error had been committed in interpreting the statutory provision itself. In other words, the interpretation attached by the parties to the provisions of the Act must have been a bona fide incorrect interpretation. This was stated very clearly in the case of Joubert vs. Joubert in the Free State Division of the Supreme Court in 1966. The facts there were, inter alia, that no banns had been published, no notice of intention to marry had been published, and no special marriage licence had been obtained. Thus page 753 (translation)—

Notwithstanding those facts, the hon. learned Judge gave the following ruling (page 736)—

As a result of this, Sir, the question arose: when are these persons committing an omission? Are they committing an omission only when they commit a bona fide error or are they committing an omission when they have read the Act themselves and have attached an incorrect interpretation to it? This point was also taken to the Supreme Court for a ruling, in the case of Ex parte S. and S., 1966, in the Transvaal Division. There the facts were, inter alia, as follows—the parties married before a magistrate and they did publish a notice of intention to marry, but this was published only in Pretoria where the man resided, and not in Johannesburg as well, where the woman resided. Both these parties acted in good faith and after they had been advised by the official responsible that everything was in order. All the steps they had taken were, according to the official, correct. According to him they were not to have concerned themselves any further. When it subsequently appeared that their actions could invalidate their marriage, they appealed to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, the judge had the following to say (page 603)—

1. (a) since the nature of the error they committed is not covered by the terms of that section.

It is true that in the previous legislation the intention was that certain alleviation could be provided in terms of section 22. If one takes note of the problems which arose, it is no wonder that Prof. Hahlo in the South African Law Journal of May 1967, on page 145, has the following to say—

Therefore, as a result of these circumstances, it is essential that the hon. the Deputy Minister should come to Parliament today with this Bill, and one gladly supports the provisions thereof.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister read out the marriage formula very impressively, but unfortunately it is the case that not every one will be able to do this with the same experience and the same training, and errors could creep in, whether committed by marriage officers of the church, or by marriage officers of the State. Therefore it is also necessary for a new subsection (3) to be added to section 30 of the principal Act, to provide that if a bona fide error should creep in, such as the use of an incorrect word or term for example, this would not necessarily invalidate the marriage. I think this Bill is a vast improvement on what the hon. member for Green Point had in mind during the 1970 debate. I am not differing with the hon. member now, but his objections were that the provisions of that Act were too strict, and he is of the opinion that perhaps even these provisions of today do not yet go far enough towards bringing alleviation in respect of the 1970 provisions. My standpoint is that this legislation does in fact go far enough, and I think this is the necessary improvement which all of us would like to have in the 1970 legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful to the hon. member for Green Point who supported this measure on behalf of the Opposition, although he could not resist the temptation to hark back a little bit to what happened last year when the details of the other Act were discussed. I do not know much about the other Act because I was not here at the time. In any case, I am not going to hark back; I do not think that what happened then is really relevant now. What is relevant and what I appreciate is his appreciation of the Government’s initiative in coming forward with this measure at this time.

*Sir, the hon. member has raised certain aspects to which he would like to have replies. One must ask oneself what “in good faith” means. I think the nature of the marriage and the circumstances with which the marriage officer is able to acquaint you really determine whether the marriage was contracted in good faith. The basic requirements laid down for a lawful marriage must, of course, be met. We know that the Marriage Act is a long Act and that quite a number of basic requirements are laid down. I do not want to go into these now. In the original Act there are provisions in connection with marriages contracted abroad, there are provisions in connection with qualifications in respect of age, and there are also certain other provisions which are not relevant now, but basic requirements are laid down which must be met for a lawful marriage to be able to be contracted. What we are dealing with here are specific criteria which used to be the only criteria which could be applied and which led to an incorrect interpretation of the particular provisions of the Act, and this is the publication, in the respective districts, of a notice of intention to marry, by the publication of the banns as well as by taking out a special licence. The Courts provided that the marriage could only be condoned if the interpretation of these three aspects had been incorrect and if the marriage had been contracted in good faith. In the new Act which came into force on 1st February certain other requirements are laid down and certain earlier requirements are done away with. Magistrates as well as ministers who have to solemnize marriages will have to read out the formula in future. They may make a mistake in taking down the names of the parties. Suppose one of the parties has a physical handicap and cannot give the other party his or her right hand, while the letter of the law provides that they shall give each other the right hand. This does not mean that the marriage was not contracted in good faith. Sometimes the parties themselves forget to do certain things. The circumstances of the case then determine whether or not the marriage was contracted in good faith. We can take the opposite as well: The parties themselves can never decide that they did not act in good faith; it is only the Minister who can condone an irregularity. Previously the power of the Minister was completely limited. He could only condone the irregularity if those three requirements of the Act, which had been read out, had been met and if the parties had acted in good faith in that respect. In other words, we are really going a bit further, but we are only being more practical than we were before. Sir, the hon. member also referred to the part played here by the churches and said that the State always took a particularly firm stand in respect of certain terms and actions and requirements in its legislation. I just want to tell the hon. member that the attitude of the church is that a marriage is really a contract. The fact that the formulas have to be read out in this way is aimed at achieving uniformity, but it does not deprive any church of the right to use its own formula at a ceremony as well. That is the aspect which is relevant here. In reply to the hon. member’s last question, we have not yet had cases where the formula was not read, because there has actually not been time for the Act to take effect properly. We often have cases where a marriage officer marries in good faith, a young man under the age of 18 and a young girl under the age of 16, because he has been brought under the wrong impression. In many of those cases there is an investigation first in order to find out the circumstances. If the parties are happy and want to remain married, the irregularity is condoned as a rule.

Who decides about it?

The department investigates the case through the normal channels; everyone who had to do with the marriage, from the marriage officer to the parents, are consulted, and the Minister then makes the final decision.

But that decision is not binding as far as the parties are concerned.

It binds the parties if they want their marriage to continue. Why should they apply for the condonation of an irregularity if they do not want to be bound? Sir, I leave it at that; I think I have replied to the hon. member’s question.

I want to thank the hon. member for Potchefstroom for his exposition of the cases which have come before the courts, from which it is clear that these changes are very necessary. There was the case of Joubert and Joubert in 1966. Then there was the subsequent case in 1967 when an application was made to the court for the condonation of an irregularity during the solemnization of a marriage, on which the judge expressed himself as follows—

He then expressed his sympathy with the people, but he could do nothing about it. Sir, I think I should conclude with this. I thank both hon. members who took part in the debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill with which I shall deal here this afternoon, is not a contentious one.

As the short title of the Bill indicates, it is connected with the provinces. Periodically it is necessary for matters connected with the provinces to be regulated by legislation. In fact, the legislation which is before the House at the moment, seeks to regulate such matters.

In the main the powers and functions of the provinces were regulated by the Constitution and the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1945. It is therefore proposed to amend by way of this Bill certain sections of these Acts which concern the provinces.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal, first of all, with the amendment of sections 17 (f) and 18 (1) (a) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, as envisaged by clauses 1 (1) and 2 (1) (a) of the Bill.

As background to these amendments I should like to mention to hon. members that my colleague the hon. the Minister of National Education has decided that the training of teachers for secondary schools will take place only at universities as from 1st January, 1972, as envisaged in section 1A of the National Education Policy Act of 1967.

Previously the training of teachers for secondary schools was also undertaken at teachers’ training colleges. However, the training of teachers for primary and preprimary schools, may still take place, as before, at teachers’ training colleges.

Some of the universities now propose to undertake the training of teachers for secondary schools in conjunction with provincial teachers’ training colleges situated nearby. In terms of this arrangement with the teachers’ training colleges concerned it is being proposed—

1. (a) to second, temporarily, members of the teaching staff at teachers’ training colleges to a university on a fulltime or part-time basis;
2. (b) to provide such students of the universities with accommodation in the hostels of the teachers’ training colleges on a contractual basis; and
3. (c) to place at the disposal of the universities concerned some of the buildings and equipment of such teachers’ training colleges.

In the light of the fact that the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools is now considered to be “higher education”, doubts have been expressed by the provincial law advisers as to whether the provinces are legally in a position to enter into such an arrangement.

In order to remove these doubts, it is being proposed that sections 17 (f) and 18 (1) (a) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, be amended as set out in clauses 1 (1) and 2 (1) (a) of the Bill.

Furthermore, it is provided in clauses 1 (2) and 2 (2) that these amendments shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st January, 1972, so as to make them coincide with the date as from which the training of the teachers concerned shall only be undertaken at universities, and as from which the arrangement concerned between the universities and teachers’ training colleges concerned took effect.

Mr. Speaker, I shall now proceed to explaining the amendment to section 18 (1) (b) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1945, as proposed in clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill.

The section to which I have just referred, makes provision for the defrayal of expenditure by a province for the training of its staff from the provincial revenue fund. Included in the expenditure that may be defrayed in this manner, is the expenditure incurred by a province for the award of bursaries to enable persons qualified or being trained as teachers to study at universities or university colleges or other institutions of higher education. In terms of this statutory provision the provinces have therefore decided to make available annually to selected teachers a number of bursaries of R2 000 each for advanced study in the Republic or abroad. This scheme enjoys the support of both the Department of National Education and the Public Service Commission.

After consideration the provincial law advisers of the Transvaal and the Cape Province, and the Government law advisers, have agreed that section 18 (1) (b), which is to be amended now, does not authorize the provinces to incur expenditure for the award of bursaries to teachers for studying at institutions of higher education in countries abroad. It has also been pointed out that these bursaries are not always utilized for study purposes alone, but also for research. Furthermore, such studies and research do not always take place at institutions of higher education. Sometimes, especially in countries abroad, such studies and research consist of visits to places which cannot be regarded as institutions of higher education, such as psychiatric clinics, etc.

The object of the proposed amendment to section 18 (1) (b) of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, as provided in clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill, is to enable a province to incur expenditure with regard to bursaries for studies pursued at places both within and outside the Republic, for research, and also for study and research at places that cannot be regarded as institutions of higher education.

As the Executive Committee of the Transvaal had been under the impression that the said section 18 (1) (b) of the relevant Act authorized the provinces to incur expenditure of the said nature also in respect of study abroad, the said Executive Committee decided on 4th February, 1969, to award bursaries for study abroad to members of the Transvaal teaching staff, and to make annual provision for this purpose in the provincial estimates. The proposed provision in clause 2 (2) seeks to authorize this expenditure, which now appears to have been unauthorized.

†Mr. Speaker, I shall now deal with the amendments of certain sections of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, proposed in clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill now before the House.

By clause 3 of the Bill a new subsection is added to section 66 of the Constitution. Section 66 of the Constitution deals with the appointment and tenure of office of provincial administrators. Subsection (4) of this section more particularly deals with the appointment of deputy Administrators. It provides that the State President may from time to time appoint a deputy Administrator to execute the office and functions of the Administrator during his absence or illness or whenever for any reason he is unable to perform the duties of his office, or while the appointment of an Administrator for the province concerned is pending. It may well happen that an Administrator could unexpectedly become seriously ill, or even die.

The formalities to be observed in appointing a deputy Administrator take time. A minute of the Executive Council must be prepared and submitted to the office of the Prime Minister for presentation to the State President. It may well happen that a day or more may lapse from the time that the need arises for the appointment of a deputy Administrator and the day on which the appointment is made by the State President. Especially could such circumstances arise when the staff of the offices of the State President and the hon. the Prime Minister annually moves from Pretoria to Cape Town for parliamentary sessions, or at the end of these sessions moves back to Pretoria.

The State law advisers intimated that the State President does not have the power to appoint a deputy Administrator post facto. The position then obtains that the actions of a person who acts as deputy Administrator before he is actually appointed as such, would be ultra vires. The proposed addition of a new subsection to section 66 of the Constitution is designed to enable the State President to make a post facto appointment of a deputy Administrator if circumstances necessitate him to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the next clause of the Bill I shall deal with provides for the addition of a new paragraph to section 84 (1) of the Constitution. Section 84 of the Constitution deals with the powers of provincial councils and details the matters in respect of which provincial councils may make ordinances. Provincial administrations and local authorities are approached from time to time by the Governments of neighbouring states for assistance in one form or another such as technical assistance, certain services, etc. Recently the municipality of Piet Retief made its sewerage tankers available to the Swaziland Government in two cases of emergency. The provincial administrations are often approached through the medium of the Department of Foreign Affairs to make qualified provincial and municipal officials available for service in neighbouring States. Doubt has been expressed whether such assistance may be rendered to neighbouring States by the provinces and local authorities in the Republic. There is no clearly defined authority in the Constitution for the provinces and local authorities, or its officials, to operate outside the Republic.

By the addition of the proposed new paragraph to section 84 (1) of the Constitution, provincial councils will be enabled to make ordinances in the matter of assistance which provincial administrations or local authorities may render to other states or territories.

The rendition of assistance by the provinces and local authorities to other States and territories, will be subject to approval by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. All requests for assistance by other States and territories are channelized through the Department of Foreign Affairs. The rendering of assistance to other States and territories when asked for, is part of this Government’s policy, and the provinces and local authorities should be authorized to render such assistance when, because of the nature of their functions, they are best equipped to do so.

The next clause of the Bill which falls to be dealt with, Mr. Speaker, is clause 5, which amends section 109 of the Constitution. The equality of the two official languages in the Republic is enshrined in section 108 of the Constitution. In section 109 of the Constitution it is provided that all documents of general public importance or interest issued by provincial councils and local authorities shall as in the case of such documents issued by Parliament, be in both official languages.

In clause 5 of the Bill it is sought to amend section 109 of the Constitution by specially mentioning town-planning schemes alongside notices issued and regulations and by-laws passed by local authorities, as documents which must be in both official languages.

Except in the Orange Free State, and to a lesser extent in the Cape Province, all town-planning schemes are available for inspection by the public in one of the official languages only, mainly in English. The notices stating where these town-planning schemes would be available for inspection were, however, published in both official languages in provincial Gazettes and newspapers. Both the State law advisers and the provincial law advisers of the Transvaal are of the opinion that those town-planning schemes which are in one official language only, are ultra vires. This is so because they are in fact documents of public importance and interest and are not available in both official languages as required by section 109 of the Constitution. These town-planning schemes are validated by clause 5 (2) of the Bill. They will, however, cease to be valid if they have not been translated into the other official language within the period of five years from the date when this Bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, that completes the amendments to the Constitution proposed in the Bill.

*Mr. Speaker, the next Act amended by this Bill is the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1971. This Act is being amended by providing that it shall be deemed to have come into operation on the fifth day of April, 1967. The background to this amendment is briefly as follows: By section 2 of the Financial Relations Amendment Act, 1967, a new matter was added to the matters in regard to which the provinces may make ordinances. This new matter comprised the establishment and control over public resorts, places of rest, seaside resorts, holiday centres, holiday camps, caravan parks, tent camps and picnic places, with the proviso that the establishment of and control over public resorts, etc., could not be exercised by a province, except by regulations made in consultation with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Sport and Recreation. The matter with the said proviso was entrusted by proclamation to the provinces of the Transvaal and Natal in 1967, which subsequently made ordinances in that regard, but was not entrusted to the Province of the Orange Free State and the Cape Province, although the Cape Province had made a start with projects for public recreation which had been entrusted to it by the Government—for instance, the Hendrik Verwoerd and P. K. le Roux dams. The Cape Province objected to the said proviso, which was deemed to be a limitation on provincial powers.

After talks between the hon. the Minister of Tourism and of Sport and Recreation and the four Administrators, and after an undertaking had been given by the said Administrators to the effect that there would be consultation on an administrative level with the Department of Tourism and the Department of Sport and Recreation in regard to the matters in question, the matter was amended in terms of section 1 of Act No. 27 of 1971 by the omission of the said proviso.

By Proclamation No. 172 of 1971 the matter, as it reads at present—i.e. without the proviso—was entrusted to the Cape Province with effect from 5th April. 1967, i.e. the date on which the Act of 1967 came into operation.

The Government law advisers expressed the opinion that the matter could not be entrusted to a province with retrospective effect prior to the date of issue of the required proclamation.

The object of the statutory amendment proposed in clause 6 (1), is to enable the State President to entrust the matter to the province by proclamation with retrospective effect, if necessary.

By clause 6 (2) of the Bill the matter concerned entrusted by proclamation to the Cape Province by the State President with retrospective effect as from 5th April, 1967, is being validated.

Mr. Speaker, the last clause of the Bill which requires explanation, is clause 7, which makes provision for the delegation of a power, function or duty entrusted in terms of an Act to an administrator, an administrator-in-executive committee, or an executive committee of a province.

In various Acts provision is made for the exercise of certain powers, or the carrying out of certain functions or duties by an administrator. In certain cases the administrator acts on his own, whereas in other cases he exercises or carries out the power or duty or function in consultation with the other members of the executive committee. In yet other cases the executive committee acts on its own.

In the majority of these cases there is no provision for the administrator or the administrator-in-executive committee or the executive committee to delegate such power, function or duty to an officer of the provincial administration concerned. In many of these cases the power, function or duty concerned is of a purely routine nature, and there is no reason why it may not be delegated. If it were in fact possible to delegate these powers, functions and duties, it would cause matters to proceed more smoothly and would bring relief to a staff already experiencing difficulties in keeping pace with an ever-increasing working load.

I want to mention the following examples of powers, functions and duties which are of a purely routine nature and which may be delegated to advantage.

In the first place, we have the Local Loans Act, 1926. In terms of the provisions of this Act the administrator shall, in respect of an application for a loan by a local authority, issue a certificate for submission to the Public Debt Commissioner to the effect that he is satisfied that the loan should be granted and that the provisions of the Act have been observed. He has to do this notwithstanding the fact that the application for the loan has already been approved in terms of the relevant provincial ordinance, quite often by an officer to whom the administrator delegated his power in terms of the relevant provincial ordinance.

A second example is the Housing Act, 1946. Section 11 (1) of this Act provides that the Housing Commission may, after consultation with the administrator and on such conditions as it may determine, approve of loans to any local authority for the purpose of enabling that local authority to undertake housing schemes. The main purpose of consultation with the administrator in this case, is to determine whether a local authority is financially in a position to enter into the obligations in question. This power is exercised after consultation with the provincial auditor, and there is no reason why the administrator’s power may not be delegated to advantage in this case as well.

The administrators, administrators-in-executive committees and the executive committees themselves have from time to time, in terms of their own legislation, delegated to certain members of their staff powers arising from provincial ordinances. Provision does already exist in some Acts —for instance, the Expropriation Act, 1965, the Advertising on Roads and Ribbon Development Act, 1940, and others— for the administrator of a province to delegate his powers under the relevant Act to an officer of the province. It would be an impossible task to amend individually the various Acts in which there is no provision for the delegation of powers, functions or duties by the administrator, administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee. The only way in which provision may be made for the proposed powers of delegation, is by way of a general statutory provision, as is done in clause 7 (1) of the Bill. Clause 7 (2) of the Bill provides that the officer to whom any power, function or duty has been delegated, shall exercise that power or carry out that function or duty subject to the directions of the administrator or administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee concerned.

Clause 7 (3) of the Bill provides that the delegation of a power, duty or function may at any time be revoked in writing, and that any such delegation shall not prevent the exercise of that power or the carrying out of that function or duty by the administrator or administrator-in-executive committee or executive committee.

I am of the opinion that hon. members on both sides of this House will agree that this Bill, the contents of which I have just explained, is not a contentious one. It is essential legislation for straightening out certain provincial matters and regulating others. I therefore trust that the proposed legislation will enjoy the support of both sides of this House.

Mr. Speaker, having dealt with the Marriages Bill, which we have just handled, and now turning to this Bill and listening to the explanations of the hon. the Minister, I am sure he will forgive me if I note the fact that there seems to be a good deal of tidying up going on in the Department of the Interior in so far as various legislative matters are concerned. When one sees in this Bill that certain of the provisions are to be made retrospective to 1967 one can see that some of this tidying up is perhaps a little overdue. We feel that the provisions of this Bill are subject to certain necessary comments, and we will support the measure which is before the House.

I believe that clause 4 is perhaps the most significant of the provisions of this particular Bill. This is the clause which regularizes the right and power of the provinces to legislate through ordinances for the provision of assistance to neighbouring states. I think it is as well that we should place on record the extent to which provincial administrations have in the past assisted neighbouring states, Lesotho and Swaziland in particular and also Botswana. One knows that there are persons being seconded even to Malawi. In one instance, a planning officer has been seconded from one of the provinces to the Department of Planning and then on to a neighbouring State to assist with town planning and town development. These measures are to be welcomed and we on this side of the House are pleased that these matters have now been regularized and that provinces can, with the approval of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, naturally, continue to render this assistance, which is not only the know-how in the field of planning, but also in the field of medicine and in various other aspects of national life. The provisions of the first two clauses of this Bill deal with educational matters and I do not propose myself to handle them. The hon. member for Durban Central will have some comments to make in regard to those clauses.

There are other aspects which are significant. One finds for instance that it has been possible in the administration for certain acts to take place over a period of years despite the fact that they were not strictly in accordance with the law. One finds, for instance, in the case of the appointment of administrators and deputy administrators, that there must be a number of instances where acts have been done by an acting or deputy administrator prior to his having received formal appointment. When one looks at the question of expenditure that has taken place, one wonders how it is that expenditure has been allowed to be incurred by the provinces and to be passed over a period of years when it was subject to audit, and that the audit has not until now pointed out these irregularities. One finds that the educational provisions are being made retrospective to 1967.

There are two other matters with which I wish to deal very briefly. The one is the right of delegation by the administrator, the administrator-in-executive or the executive committee. I hope that this power to delegate will not be extensively used. One appreciates the isolated or specific instances mentioned by the hon. the Minister, especially in regard to facts which are essentially within the knowledge of the provincial auditor, who is in the position to certify figures and amounts of that nature. But one must bear in mind that there has been a change in so far as the provincial executives are concerned. Many hon. members in this House will have had the experience of the days when executive members were appointed part-time. They were not fulfilling their duties as executive members full-time. One can imagine that in those days the necessity to delegate was a very real one. The burden would have been too heavy for the Administrator to carry. But at the present moment where there are in the provinces of the Cape and the Transvaal four full-time executive members with their portfolios or departments within the Administration, I do hope that this power—I speak for this side of the House—of delegation will be sparingly used in passing on the responsibility to officials. One can accept that delegation is all right when it is purely, as in the nature of those instances quoted by the hon. the Minister, an administrative act. One does not wish to have the position arising when there are matters of a more contentious nature—such as matters of policy—being delegated to officials when it is in fact the responsibility of the administrator and of members of the executive committee.

We fully support the provision that the town-planning schemes are brought within the purview of bilingualism. One can assume, as I understood from the hon. the Minister’s statement, that it has not always been in both languages. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister in this regard. The town-planning schemes are lengthy and involved and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able in some manner to make available, particularly to smaller municipalities, persons with the necessary technical knowledge and know-how to assist with the translation, be it from Afrikaans to English or vice versa, of these town-planning schemes. I think it is important that there should be an accepted standard of language used in the compilation of these town-planning schemes, so that there are no arguments as to what the meaning of words is. I have had experience myself of smaller municipalities who have found themselves having arguments about the most appropriate word to use, be it English or Afrikaans, to express a certain intention of the scheme. If that is done, it would be of considerable assistance, particularly to the smaller municipalities. It will ensure, as I have said, that there is uniformity in the language used in the explanation and setting out of town-planning schemes. They are complicated and involved and it is essential that there should be a common factor, known and understood by all persons who have to read and apply them. As I have said we will support this measure; we believe it is a necessary one. I am glad that certain of these matters are now being rectified.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred to a number of aspects, and also discussed them, in connection with this Bill, aspects in regard to which I do not want to follow him. The Minister will reply to them in due course.

I should like to express just a few thoughts on a number of minor principles contained in clauses 1 and 2. These are also the clauses to which the hon. member for Green Point referred as concerning educational matters. These clauses are actually the logical outcome of the National Education Policy Act of 1967—as we know it, Act No. 39. That Act was amended or confirmed once again by Act 73 of 1969, which deals exclusively with the training of teachers. These new amendments contain no major, new principles. Act 73 of 1969 provides that courses for the training of persons as teachers for secondary schools shall extend over a period of not less than four years, and that such training shall only be provided at universities. This Act came into operation as from 1st January, 1972. In other words, that is the date with effect from which the training of the teachers concerned shall only take place at universities, it means that prospective high school teachers were as from that date allowed for the first time to enroll at universities for study purposes. I understood—and this is gratifying—that great interest was shown and that the reaction amongst prospective high school teachers was most favourable.

This measure should have come into operation sooner, but the Minister granted the universities an extension of time since all of them were not ready to receive these students, mainly as a result of a shortage of accommodation and perhaps lecture halls as well. Furthermore, there may also have been a shortage of staff. But the Education Council has now recommended that no further extension of time be granted in regard to this matter. What is the situation that has arisen in respect of buildings? The universities do not have sufficient accommodation facilities and space for prospective teachers. On the other hand one finds that at teachers’ training colleges there are buildings which are either not fully occupied or not occupied at all. Within the framework of the existing legislation it was not possible for the Transvaal Education Department to surrender or lease these buildings. Statutory powers are now being granted to provincial administration to enter into a contract with a university which requires either the buildings as a whole or part of such buildings for the training of teachers. Such a contract will, of course, be entered into on a part-time basis. This provision is contained in clause 2 (a).

What is the situation that has arisen in regard to the available teaching staff? It is understandable that with the implementation of this legislation, there will be a shortage of staff, also at the universities. Clause 1 (f) amends the original Act in that it will now be possible for members of the teaching staff at teachers’ training colleges to be seconded temporarily on a full-time or part-time basis to a university. I want to express the hope at once that the universities will amply avail themselves of this concession. The teaching staff members of our colleges are experienced lecturers who are most knowledgeable, especially in regard to professional training for students, and with that experience they will be an asset to the university as such and to the students being trained.

Then I want to refer to another clause which I find to be a particularly welcome one, and which I consider to be a very positive measure. That is clause 2 (1) (b). The present section makes provision for bursaries from the provincial revenue fund to students intending to be trained as teachers at universities, i.e. for teaching at high schools. This training may also take place at university colleges or at other institutions of higher education. This amendment which is only an addition, now has the effect that such training may also take place at other places within or outside the Republic. In addition to training, provision is also being made for research to be done at places within or outside the Republic. It is important and essential that bursaries be awarded to selected teachers for advanced study or research in regard to education outside the Republic. It is very essential that some of our teachers, and in particular the more experienced teachers who have already proved themselves, be afforded the opportunity to take stock of education in other countries and to do research on the teaching methods applied there. This is an asset not only to themselves, but also to education as such. I believe that the bodies concerned which are going to award those bursaries, are also going to expect these persons to render something in return, and that is that bursary holders shall report on the research done by them, or that they shall prepare a paper on the work that was the subject of their research. We are aware of the fact that the Transvaal Education Department made such bursaries available to selected teachers, and that such persons benefited by this step. I know about persons who received those bursaries, and I know that they benefited a great deal by them. I would say that this really is a positive step and that it will also yield good fruit. I take pleasure in supporting heartily this legislation in respect of those clauses.

Mr. Speaker, like the previous speaker, I would like to pay special attention to the educational clauses contained in this Bill. I want to say that certain aspects of these clauses worry me. I think we need further clarification on them. These clauses are, of course, clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 makes provision for the provincial authorities to pass ordinances to allow the temporary secondment of the teaching staff. I would be the first to concede that this is essential. In a large organization such as an education department, it is absolutely essential that the department should and must have this power. There are, however, certain practices which have emerged as a result of the application of this principle. Firstly, we frequently find that a teacher, for instance, is seconded to the position of a lecturer at a teachers’ training college, which is a higher post, and that person is expected to accept greater responsibility. Sometimes he holds this post for six months, a year or even longer, and although he is required to accept greater responsibility, his salary is not adjusted accordingly. I would like to make use of this opportunity to say to the provinces: “You can have this power to pass ordinances, but you must not exploit your own staff and personnel.” This is something unfair and gives rise to discontent amongst the staff.

Then, Sir, there is another aspect which I want to raise, and this is something which is peculiar to the Transvaal. It seems to be the practice in this province to use the whole system of secondment of teachers as a cover for the compulsory transfer of personnel, or what you might call the involuntary transfer of people. I do not know why this should be the case. I think it creates the wrong impression. If you want to transfer part of your staff, and it is essential to do so, then you should tell them that they are being transferred. I know that this is the situation in Natal where a person is transferred. But to go to a member of the staff and say to him that he is being seconded from Carletonville to Ermelo …

Could that not be dealt with under the Education Vote?

In giving powers to the provinces, as we are doing here, we must consider how these powers are going to be used. I think that this practice must cease in the provinces, because it is creating the wrong impression and it is in fact against the spirit of what we envisage here.

Sir, clause 2, as has been explained by previous speakers, is the direct result of the universities. This has resulted in a great influx of students at the universities, especially in the education faculties of these universities. As has already been mentioned, the universities are experiencing difficulties in providing adequate accommodation as well as training facilities. It is stated in this clause that accommodation can be provided on a contractual basis, and special reference is made to disciplinary conditions. With all this emphasis on disciplinary conditions, I think we must accept it that this can easily lead to a lot of unnecessary ill-feeling between neighbouring teachers’ training colleges and universities. The impact of the influx of student teachers at universities has been the greatest in the province of Transvaal. The reason for this is quite clear. The Transvaal has some of the largest teachers’ training colleges, and for many years these colleges have specialized in the training of secondary school teachers. The reason for this is that all the teachers’ training colleges in the Transvaal are situated in close proximity to neighbouring universities. In Potchefstroom you have the ideal set-up, because there you have the teachers’ training college next to the university. Now my information is that this year you have already had 50 or 60 of the students at the university who could not be accommodated at the university and therefore provision had to be made to accommodate them at the teachers’ training college, exactly as envisaged in this legislation. But what has the result been? The teachers’ training college adopted the attitude: Fine, come and stay in the hostel, we will provide accommodation for you but then you must abide by our rules; in other words, we must be able to lay down some disciplinary conditions. Some of these rules required that the students should belong to the college organizations and must play rugby for the college and not for the university. My information is that the result has been that the 50 or 60 students packed their bags and went back to the university because they were not prepared to accept these conditions. They were then placed with private people. This is the type of thing which I fear when we are going to have a contractual basis and we place all this emphasis on the disciplinary conditions. I want to say, as I read the Bill, that for years you have had in the Transvaal a system where the universities assisted the colleges. The students of the training colleges were allowed to stay on the campus of the college. They received their academic training at the university and they received their professional training, their teachers’ diplomas, etc., at the college, but never did any of these established universities try to lay claim to these students. The students were allowed to be part of the college campus life. They were allowed to play rugby, etc., for the college. The reason why I decided to participate in this debate is to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that as it is laid down here, the emphasis being laid on the disciplinary conditions, we have already had the experience this year of a college saying that these students must accept the college’s conditions.

The other matter which worries me is that in the past a student training at the university, taking his degree at the university often did so at his own expenses. They were not under any contract to the provincial authorities at all, because it was only the teachers or students who were enrolled from the colleges at the universities who were in fact contracted to the provinces. I refer to the contract whereby if you have had four years of training at the university you contract to teach for four years in that province. I believe it is now possible to transfer to another province. I wonder what the attitude of the provinces will be. According to clause 2 (1) (a) it will be possible for the provinces to adopt the following attitude and say: Fine, come and make use of our facilities on a contractual basis. But now you have a different set of circumstances. Many of the students taking teachers’ diplomas or degrees at the university are private students; in other words, they are not there as the result of grants from the provinces. What will happen if the provinces adopt the attitude and say: Fine, you may come along and use our facilities, but part of the contract is that if you use the facilities of the teachers’ training college and stay in our hostel you must be contracted with the province. It can only result in causing internal difficulties for the Universities. It is for this reason that I honestly feel that there must be some contract. It cannot be otherwise. In the past there was in fact a contract between the universities and the provincial authorities in the sense that the universities provided the academic training and the provinces paid the tuition fees. So there must be some contract and in negotiating these contracts the various provinces as well as the universities must take into consideration the position of the student.

*As far as clause 2 (b) is concerned, I can say nothing but that I welcome it. I think it is a progressive step, specially, as we have heard, since it is restricted to South Africa, nor to some or other field of study, but is in fact being extended to general research. I believe that at this juncture I must appeal to the teachers of South Africa to make use of these wonderful opportunities being offered to them.

Firstly, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Green Point who replied on behalf of the Opposition and said that they were supporting the measure we are dealing with at the moment. I am very pleased to hear him say too that he thought there was a great deal of tidying up during the years and that he appreciates the fact that we are still continuing with this tidying up.

There is still a lot to be done.

Very well. You had your years for doing it. We are doing it now. I think the Bill probably covers the sphere in respect of which we have to do a lot of tidying up for the simple reason that in respect of teacher training this change has taken place. I want to say also in respect of the first matter the hon. member mentioned, the rights given to the provinces now for the first time to assist neighbouring territories, that this is a step in the right direction. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member feels with us in regard to that matter. We have often through the years been of assistance to some of the neighbouring territories, particularly in the case of Lesotho. In the last few years we have had not only private people such as Dr. Anton Rupert assisting them but from the Government side too we have given a great deal of technical assistance. We have never placed ourselves in the position of financial grandfathers as the Americans have done by giving contributions in the form of cash, but we have helped in regard to staff and technical aid. We have assisted our neighbours to develop their own schemes as far as possible. This, I think, is a great improvement in so far as the extension of the rights of the provinces is concerned. I myself was involved a few years ago when the four Administrators went to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the time. That was about four or five years ago and we talked about the possibility of giving certain rights to the provinces to do exactly what we are suggesting now. I therefore think that this is a step in the right direction.

The hon. member suggested too that there must have been many irregularities in the past for the simple reason that the Administrators plus the executive committees did not have the right to appoint a substitute when an Administrator was not available. That was one of the difficulties I personally experienced in Natal. It is not a matter that can be done overnight. You cannot ask the Prime Minister or anybody else responsible, like the Minister of the Interior, that he has to appoint somebody in your place and then he does it immediately. This usually takes some time, and I think it is a step in the right direction that we are giving the Administrators and the executive committees this right to delegate not only certain matters which they cannot handle themselves, but also to appoint people in their places.

We fully support too, as the hon. member said, the question of equality of language rights in respect of town-planning matters. The hon. member will appreciate that this was one of the difficulties initially. We had a number of matters in respect of which we wanted language equality implemented by the provinces, but this was not always done. We only found quite recently that in respect of town-planning schemes which were advertised and in respect of which tenders were called for this did not happen and that many people could not interpret the advertisements as they were published. We feel too that language equality can be extended in public notices. There are many matters, which I do not want to discuss today, in the provincial administrations where unilingualism is still prevalent, to put it this way. I think in the years that I was in Natal I possibly had to do 90 per cent of all my work in English for the simple reason that I had four English-speaking members of the Executive Committee and possibly 90 per cent of our officials were English-speaking too. We did try at one time to alternate by using Afrikaans one month and English the next, but this did not prove to be a practical possibility, not in the province of Natal at any rate. I hope that this will be possible or that it can be made possible in the other provinces.

But the Free State is exactly the opposite.

The Free State may be the other way around, but in Natal especially we have a large number of unilingual people. I do think that this is a matter which can be further investigated with a view to extending the alternate use of the two languages.

The hon. member said in regard to the question of assistance to smaller local authorities, that the Central Government should assist in translating the notices, etc., which from time to time have to be published in connection with township matters in both official languages. I do not think that this is the responsibility of the central Government. As I see it, it is the responsibility of the provincial administrations, and I think that all four are willing and, in fact, trying to do this as far as possible. It is very difficult to get people who can do translation work. We do not only experience this difficulty in the provincial administrations, but it also obtains in the central Government. Very few people can translate notices and publications of a rather technical nature satisfactorily. These are difficult to put across in another language.

*As regards the hon. member for Koedoespoort, he concentrated his attention on two clauses in particular, i.e. clauses 1 and 2. He spoke of a number of problems regarding education, which I think it will be possible to discuss in more detail during the Committee Stage. It is true, as he said, that it is a pity that these changes could be applied for the first time only this year; in other words, that we could not start implementing these particular clauses shortly after the passing of the legislation in 1967.

The hon. member, too, will realize, however, that we have had all kinds of difficulties in rendering possible co-operation between the universities and teachers’ colleges. In any event, I hope that henceforth much more rapid progress will be made in expediting the integration, if I may call it this, of the universities and colleges as far as the training of secondary teachers is concerned. I think the legislation makes provision not only for the matter of accommodation space but also for the use of teaching staff from the universities. Furthermore, I hope the universities will make generous use of their trained staff, because, as the hon. member rightly said, we have in our universities a large number of people who are very well trained in this direction and who have not been available to the training colleges. I believe that full use will undoubtedly be made of these people. Even if this is not the position at the outset, it will happen in due course that such people will be exchanged. I think it is a very wise step if such people are encouraged to do so.

The hon. member went on to refer to the question of bursaries for enabling a prospective teacher to study abroad too. I think this is a step in the right direction and something of which the teachers will certainly avail themselves as far as possible. As the hon. member said, and I agree with this, we must ensure that on the return of a person from abroad, he will make available his experience, his studies or this thesis to others who are in similar circumstances in other provinces in colleges or universities. This is one of the problems with which the Government has to contend. Occasionally we do send people abroad to undertake certain particular studies. They return and write papers, but they do not always make those papers on the experience they have gained available to people who find themselves in similar circumstances in other provinces.

The hon. member for Durban Central mentioned the fact that teachers were often seconded to higher posts than those they occupied at that stage but that they were then not remunerated accordingly. I do not want to express an opinion on the principles of this matter today. However, we have the position that some of the provinces do this in the case of hospitalization. For example, this is done with persons who have to act temporarily as matrons in certain cases, and with doctors who have to act temporarily as superintendents for longer periods—in certain provinces it is valid only after a period of three months—but the principle exists that when a person acts in those circumstances, he is remunerated. This is one of the difficulties our teachers have experienced up to now. I think the matter, and the hon. the Minister of National Education may correct me if I am wrong—has been seen to in the past year or two. The hon. the Minister of National Education will be in a better position than I to reply to this, but I think that provision has, in fact, been made to compensate teachers who have to occupy higher posts temporarily for the period they do so. As regards the Transvaal system of seconding mentioned by the hon. member, I must say with all respect that I do not think this is a matter with which this particular Bill is concerned. I think it may be connected with this Bill indirectly, but in my opinion the proper place for raising the matter will be on the Education Vote. On that Vote one will be able to bring to the attention of the Minister the existing practice in the Transvaal.

Since we are giving other Provincial Councils the privilege of making ordinances with such a specific object now, is this not the time now for us to see to how it works in practice? That is why I brought it to the attention of the Minister.

I nevertheless think it is a matter which can be raised on the Education Vote. This is a completely different measure and I do not think it is relevant to put this question under the circumstances.

As regards the third point raised by the hon. members, i.e. the question of the disciplinary measures to which people who go from the universities to the colleges are subject, I think it is correct that the provinces ought to have the right to apply disciplinary measures. Were it not the case that they had the right to apply disciplinary measures and to exercise discipline, I personally am of the opinion that chaos could develop at those places. I think students simply have to accept that if they take up residence in those institutions the rules applicable in those institutions will be applied to them as well. To me this seems to be a perfectly normal and logical attitude and, as far as I know, it is accepted by most of these people. The hon. member spoke of 60 people he knew to be dissatisfied with this. I do not know of 60 such people. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of National Education can reply to the hon. member in this regard. It seems to me that this is a question of the provinces having to have, in the first instance, the right to exercise discipline where they want to do so. This actually concerns the question of the exercising of discipline, something which we regard as being an inherent right which a province has to have in these particular circumstances.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As will be noticed from the long title of this Bill, its purpose is to provide for the granting of advances by the Land Bank to companies which carry on fanning operations in the Republic and South-West Africa, and for related matters. However, hon. members must not conclude that the granting of loans to farming companies is a form of credit to the agricultural sector which is now being envisaged by the Land Bank for the first time, since such loans have in reality been granted by the Bank for many years.

As is the case with many other developments in the farming industry, the establishment of private companies in agriculture began to occur here and there years ago, and gradually increased until it has become a fairly general phenomenon today in the more sophisticated economy of our country. During the first two to three decades of the Land Bank’s existence, it did not often happen that a company which carried on farming operations approached the Bank for financial assistance.

In the 1930s, however, the Bank started receiving increasing numbers of applications for loans from such companies, and since many of the applications were of a deserving nature, the Land Bank Board, in the light of the general provisions of the Land Bank Act, proceeded to grant loans, under certain circumstances and on specific conditions, to private farming companies which consisted exclusively of small family undertakings.

As the Bank in due course gained experience of the administration of such loans, some uncertainty arose in respect of the Bank’s powers of recovering the debt under the loans concerned in cases where a private farming company was placed under judicial management or was being wound up.

Therefore this Bill proposes, inter alia, to set out explicitly in the Land Bank Act the Bank’s powers in respect of loans to private companies.

For this purpose the proposed amendments empower the Land Bank Board, in cases where a private farming company has been placed under judicial management or is being wound up, to seize, without process of law, such property of the company as is mortgaged or hypothecated to the Bank, and to cause it to be sold in order to recover the company’s debt to the Bank. The Land Bank Board already possesses powers in regard to ordinary debtors who are declared insolvent or whose estates are administered in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, as well as in regard to cooperative agricultural companies which are liquidated. In the last-mentioned cases, the Land Bank Board also has statutory authority to exercise such powers in spite of the provisions of the Insolvency Act, the Agricultural Credit Act or the Co-operative Societies Act, as the case may be, and in accordance with that the Bill contains a provision that no other law shall derogate from the provisions of the Land Bank Act in so far as they relate to the companies concerned.

In conclusion, the Bill contains a number of provisions designed to eliminate certain shortcomings in the Land Bank Act. The existing Act prohibits, inter alia, the granting of a Land Bank advance to a member of the Land Bank Board or an adviser of the Bank or a member of the Bank’s staff, and this prohibition is now also being made applicable to a general manager of the Bank, who, owing to an oversight at the time, is not mentioned in the existing section of the Act.

In regard to the granting of loans on a mortgage of movable property, a further shortcoming in the existing Act is being eliminated by the insertion of a provision in this Bill in terms of which the Land Bank Board is empowered, in respect of a debt deficit under such a loan, to prove a claim against the estate of a deceased debtor or the estate of a debtor who is mentally disordered or defective or who is declared incapable of managing his own affairs.

This amendment also empowers the Board to prove a similar claim against a company which has been placed under judicial management or is being wound up.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this side of the House I merely want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill, for the very good reasons set out here by the hon. gentleman himself. It is only surprising that it took such a long time, after it had already become the practice that many farming companies make use of Land Bank loans, before these amendments were introduced. One would have expected it to have been done a long time ago. Since they are contained in the Bill at this stage, we have no objection at all to their being accepted. In clause 1 (c) there is a minor amendment in respect of the definition of a farmer. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can give us the reasons for this and sketch the background to it. In addition, he can tell us what the new definition entails. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain this amendment to us. This side of the House has no objection to any of the other clauses, and we want to express the hope that this Bill will go through this House as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members opposite for their support. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to clause 1 (c), on which I shall elaborate further in the Committee Stage. I have a memo here which I should like to read out to the House. The present definition of a co-operative company in the Act also applies to a company where this expression occurs in the Act in relation to loans of co-operative companies. However, since a new definition of “company” is now being inserted, and the meaning of the word “company” where it occurs in the Act in relation to loans made to a co-operative company can be clearly distinguished from an ordinary company, the expression “or company” is being omitted from the definition of co-operative company. The hon. member referred to the definition of “farmer”, and if he raises this matter in the Committee Stage, I shall be able to clear up the hon. member’s problems.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is a mere four years ago that this House passed legislation, i.e. the South African Indian Council Act, 1968, which provided for the establishment of a statutory council to succeed the first South African Indian Council which had been established by administrative procedure four years earlier, that is in 1964, after consultation by the then Minister of Indian Affairs with Indian leaders at the Laudium conference. I make mention of this fact to illustrate the progress that has been made in this relatively short period. Hon. members will perhaps recall that the first council was established in the face of strong opposition from a substantial section of the Indian community and that although those present at the Laudium conference unanimously decided to request the Minister to establish such a council, they were not prepared to nominate even a panel from which the Minister could make the appointments. That council did such good work that they were accepted in ever widening circles. So much so that it was considered necessary after only four years to give greater status to the council by its conversion into a statutory body which could by virtue of the greater support that it commanded at the time, also be constituted on a broader representative basis. One of the tasks assigned to this first statutory council by implication was to pave the way for the next step in its development.

In the brief span of its first period of office, which expired on 31st August, 1971, the council achieved so much success and so much became the accepted Indian authority that a clamour for elections was started in the Indian Press. However, after consultation with the South African Indian Council, I am not prepared to be rushed into hasty action. I prefer to give the council the opportunity to develop in an orderly manner upon the sound foundations laid so far. The measure now before the House is, therefore, an interim measure which is flexible enough to allow the council to develop on a partly elected basis. Hon. members will no doubt have noticed that clauses 1 and 8 contain the gist of this Bill. Accordingly I wish to deal mainly with these two clauses.

Clause 2 provides for the enlargement of the council’s membership as well as for its reconstitution from time to time to consist of appointed and elected members. It is necessary to increase the maximum membership from 25 to 30 with a view to making a wider and better balanced representation between the various provinces possible. The number of 30 has been determined in consultation with the council. Whereas it makes for better representation on the one hand, it is on the other hand not so large as to make the council unwieldy.

It will also be observed that this clause makes provision for the determination by proclamation in the Gazette of the ratio of appointed and elected members as well as the procedure to be followed with elections. These proclamations can be amended from time to time to meet the requirements of the moment and, therefore, allow for development of the council as I have already indicated. In order to make this development possible, it is necessary that the legal procedures to be followed be flexible, allowing the reconstitution of the council from time to time and to amend the election procedures in accordance with the changing composition of the council. There is, however, an important principle written into this clause, a principle that I wish to underline, namely that proclamations can only be issued by the State President “after consultation by the Minister with the council”. This principle of consultation is the all-important basis on which my department and I have succeeded in building sound relations with the Indian community and has, therefore, also been the basis for the sound development of the South African Indian Council in the past, and will continue to be so in future. As a matter of fact, this very Bill is founded on consultation with the South African Indian Council and is accepted by that body.

Subsection (4) of clause 2 provides that serving members of the council as at the time of its enlargement and the first election of members shall continue to serve as appointed members until the expiration of the term of office of the council.

Mr. Speaker, I make no excuse for this provision other than to state that I consider it only fair that the serving members should be accorded this right in view of the service that they have rendered to their community in spite of criticism and censure from certain sections of the Indian public and Press.

I know that in some quarters the members of the South African Indian Council have been labelled as “stooges of the Government” or “yes-men”. It will probably also be said that it is for this reason that I wish to protect their rights. However, no member of the council has been appointed because he is a “stooge” or a “yes-man”, nor have I ever victimized any member of the council for having criticized the Government or its actions. In making appointments it has always been my policy to appoint those persons who could best serve their community and the country in a responsible and dignified manfer. Naturally, I am not prepared to appoint anybody who is not prepared to serve on the basis of consultation but who prefers a policy of confrontation which would bring us nowhere.

At this juncture I wish to pay tribute to the members, past and present, of the South African Indian Council for the excellent work done by them. In spite of criticism and sometimes personal insults and threats they have not faltered in carrying out their duties as responsible members of their community. In particular I wish to praise the members of the executive committee for their unstinted service to their community and country, often under most trying conditions and at great personal sacrifice. They have really performed their duties in a most efficient manner and are in no small way responsible for the esteem in which the council is held.

This brings me to clause 8 of the Bill, whereby the Council is empowered to deal with certain matters relating to the Indian community, such as for example community welfare and education, and which makes provision for the delegation of administrative and executive functions to the executive committee by the Minister, an Administrator or the Executive Committee of a province.

Based on my experience with the executive committee of the first statutory council and that of the present executive, I have no doubt at all that certain functions in the fields of social welfare and education can at this stage be delegated to that body and that as we go along, these matters could be entrusted to the committee in increasing degree. These delegations are, however, matters that will also be considered in the light of our consultations with the council.

The other clauses in this Bill are for the most part consequential amendments. I shall deal with them briefly and if any further elucidation is required, I shall do so in the Committee Stage.

Clause I ensures the continued existence of the South African Indian Council as such from the time of promulgation of the amending legislation until the date on which the council is enlarged by proclamation.

Clause 3 merely acknowledges the present provision for provincial representation and extends it to the reconstituted council.

Clause 4: Apart from the consequential amendment to cover elected members the disqualifications are extended by subsection (c) to include servants of the State who are not incumbents of posts in the public service, e.g. teachers.

Clause 5: The proviso inserted in sub-section (1) ensures that a common term of office can be determined for appointed and elected members.

Clause 6 substitutes a clearer description of the grounds for vacation of office and extends the disqualifications to include such matters as physical and mental defects and misconduct. It also makes provision for written resignation from office and requires appointed members to signify acceptance of their appointment in writing.

Clause 7 rectifies a shortcoming in the principle Act in that there is no provision for continuity of office as far as the executive committee is concerned. In view of the fact that executive powers will be delegated to the committee, it is so much more important that there should be a caretaker committee in between the periods of office of these committees.

Having already dealt with clause 8, I finally come to clause 9 which safeguards the validity of the decisions and actions of the council and its executive committee from nullification by virtue of technical default or omission.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is not only a further step in the implementation of the Government’s policy of separate development for the Indian community, but also illustrates what can be achieved by a community that is prepared to grasp the opportunities offered to it. It further illustrates that the best way of development is self-development. Responsible leaders of the Indian community have not been slow in grasping this truth. It must be remembered that it was only as recently as 1961 that the Indian people of the Republic were recognized for the first time as a permanent part of the South African population. It augurs well for their future that their leaders have come forward and signified their willingness to work within the framework of Government policy for the welfare of their people in particular and for the general welfare of the Republic of South Africa. No wonder that they have made great strides ahead in all fields during the last decade and have proved that they can in ever-increasing measure render their own community services.

The Government, therefore, has no hesitation in providing this measure for their further self-development.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill will be supported by the official Opposition at the Second Reading. It will be supported because it is a step in the right direction, but in saying that it is a step in the right direction, we are not suggesting that we do not have criticism of certain of the measures embodied in the Bill —I shall deal with those provisions in detail—and that we do not have criticism of the manner in which these powers are to be implemented. As the hon. the Minister has said, the original Act of 1968 was, if one can put it this way, in the nature of a skeleton outline, and this Bill is a measure which puts a certain amount of flesh onto the skeleton. We welcome it in that this skeleton is now to be partly covered. Our criticism is that the Bill does not go far enough. It introduces two things principally; it introduces the elective principle into what is at the present time a wholly nominated body. To that extent it is to be welcomed, although from the point of view of the United Party we would have liked to see it a wholly elective party. The standpoint of this party is that whilst we believe—indeed, it is the corner-stone of our policy—that there ought to be communal councils for various race groups and for the Indians in particular, to which councils’ powers should be devolved so that they will have the maximum executive function we believe that the body which is to exercise those functions should be a wholly elective body. But, Sir, to the extent that the elective principle is introduced in this measure, it has our support. The other principal function of the Bill, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, is to give executive functions, in the field of social welfare and education, to what was an advisory body under the Act as it stands at the present time. At the present time the Act gives the Indian Council merely powers of an advisory nature, whereas the Bill before the House introduces executive functions. To that extent also the Bill has the support of this side of the House, although, as I shall indicate, we believe that it does not go far enough and that further executive powers could profitably be given to this council. The third aspect upon which I shall comment is that this is really in the nature of an empowering Bill—and I speak generally—to allow the Minister to implement what is intended by means of proclamation in the Gazette. That is the third aspect upon which there will be criticism levied from this side of the House. I may say that for the past year or two in debates on the hon. the Minister’s Vote this side of the House has attempted to obtain from the hon. the Minister an indication of his thinking as to the direction in which this council is to evolve, and it is interesting now to read in this Bill for the first time what the Minister’s thinking is in that regard, in so far as it is revealed at all in this Bill.

Sir, clause 1 provides merely for the continued existence of the present council, pending the inauguration of the new enlarged council, which is set out in clause 2. Clause 2, as the hon. the Minister has said, is one of the principal clauses of the Bill. It empowers the Minister by proclamation —and I emphasize that it is by proclamation—to do a number of things. It empowers him to declare the size of the enlarged council; to declare the number of members to be elected, as opposed to nominated; to declare the qualifications of candidates and voters and the procedures to be followed in regard to nominations and elections. It also provides for the Minister to declare in this proclamation the demarcation of constituencies. Sir, I believe that this is a strange way of going about it; it is a strange way that important matters of this kind should be done entirely by way of proclamation, a proclamation which is not even to be laid on the Table of the House for discussion, as is the proclamation referred to later on in the Bill, in clause 8, which refers to executive functions. The effect of clothing the Executive Committee with executive functions in this way is to preclude this House from having any say in what is intended. We are precluded from having any debate or offering any comments on the number of elected members which this council is to have and on the qualifications of candidates and voters. We are not to play any part in laying down the procedures to be followed at elections or nominations, and we are to have no say in the demarcation of constituencies. It seems to me, to say the least, that this is a strange way of going about things, more particularly as the Indian Council, in one form or another, has now been in existence for some eight years. I would have thought that the proper way to have gone about this Bill would have been to set out in the Bill what was intended in this regard, or, at the very least, for the hon. the Minister in introducing the measure to outline to the House what his thinking is so far as the proclamation which he foreshadows is concerned. Sir, we are given no idea as to what qualifications are expected of members either of the council or of the executive committee. We are given no idea, either in the Bill or in the hon. the Minister’s speech, as to what proportion of this council is to be elected, not to mention the Minister’s intention in the other regards which are referred to as being matters to be dealt with by proclamation. In our view the better and the proper way to do this would have been to follow what was done in the case of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, a similar measure dealing with the Coloured people and their council, which was passed by this House in 1964. I do not propose to go into detail as far as that Act is concerned. But simply to give an illustration of the way I believe it should have been done I would refer the House to sections 1 to 4 of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, in which there is set out in detail the manner in which voters are to be registered, the number of the council, the number of councillors to be elected, the number of councillors to be nominated by the Minister, the qualifications of voters and the disqualification of voters. All this is set out at length in the Act itself, which was subject to discussion in this House, and I believe that is the way in which the hon. the Minister should have approached the problem of setting up the Indian Council, with which we are dealing in this Bill.

Clause 3 deals with the distribution of seats between the various provinces, another matter which is to be settled by way of proclamation, and this House will play no part in the settling of that issue. Here again if one looks at the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, it was a matter which was set out in detail in the Bill itself and which was discussed by this House.

Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the qualifications of members of the council, that is to say, qualifications apart from the requirement of being an Indian who is permanently resident in the Republic; that is referred to in the Bill. But all the other qualifications are to be set out by way of proclamation. We have not been told what the Minister’s views are in this regard. Nothing is set out in the Bill and the House is left completely in the dark was to what the hon. the Minister has in mind in that regard. Here again, if one looks at the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, section 10, one finds that those matters were specifically set out in that Bill and were the subject of discussion in this House.

Clause 5 embodies a provision which I cannot understand, and I refer the Minister to the new section 5 (1), which is at line 35 on page 5 of the English text. It is a new proviso which is to be inserted and which, as far as I can understand, language has no meaning which is clearly ascertainable. I would be glad if in his reply or at some later stage during these proceedings the hon. the Minister would tell us what is intended in this regard and what these words mean in his view. I refer to the words “provided that the period of office of persons who are members of the council at any particular time shall not extend beyond a date fixed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette as the date of expiry of the period of office of those members”.

We come then to clause 6 which deals with the circumstances under which a member of the council would be required to vacate his office as a member. A number of them are unexceptionable but I would refer to paragraph (c) on page 7, which provides that a man who becomes a member of the council shall vacate this office if he signifies in writing his wish to resign and his resignation is accepted by the Minister. One wonders why it is necessary that his resignation should be accepted by the Minister. One would have thought that the mere submission of a resignation in writing would have been sufficient, as is normally the case. A further paragraph which one is concerned with is paragraph (b) which provides that if the condition of his health becomes such that the Minister acting on the advice of a registered medical practitioner considers him unfit for further service on the council he can inform him accordingly in writing. No one knows the provisions which are usually applicable in cases of this kind, they are to be found in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act and in the legislation relating to those people who hold office in this House and other elected bodies in this country. The provision normally relates to unsoundness of mind, of one kind or another, usually declared by a court to be such, but here you have an unusual provision whereby the Minister can remove a person on the advice of a single registered medical practitioner. I would like the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell the House what he has in mind in this regard.

Whatever it was, it was unsound.

I would like the Minister to indicate what he has in mind and what circumstances in his view would warrant the inclusion of a clause of this kind. I would have thought that if one is to rely on medical advice in regard to unfitness to hold an office, there should at least be two medical practitioners whose opinion the Minister would accept, as in the case where one has to apply to court to have a person declared to be of unsound mind, or declared incapable of managing his affairs. One medical opinion in those circumstances is never considered sufficient and prima facie it would appear that that criticism would apply in this regard. It is an unusual provision and I would like the hon. the Minister to enlarge upon it in his reply.

A further aspect of this matter which prima facie is unusual is paragraph (h) of this clause, that is to say, the second part. The first part is normal. A man is required to vacate his seat if he is removed from an office of trust on account of improper conduct. That is not an unusual provision but then it goes on to say “or if he has been guilty of conduct by reason whereof he is in the opinion of the Minister, after consultation with the council, not a fit person to remain a member of the council, and is informed in writing by the Minister accordingly”. Here again this is framed in an unusual manner and I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate the type of circumstance which he believes would warrant the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. Here again, if one looks at the legislation relating to the setting up of the Coloured Persons Representative Council one finds no such provision as I am discussing at the present time. The more orthodox references to insolvency and incapacity are all set out there. It is not a measure such as this one to which I have just referred. Now, one wonders why in setting up a council of this kind, or rather giving it further powers, there is such a wide divergence between the manner in which it is sought to be done in this case before us and the manner in which it was done when the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council was being set up. After all, the Bill would not have been brought before the House, one assumes, unless the hon. the Minister has clearly in his mind what he will put in the proclamation to be published when this Bill becomes law. He must have clearly set out in his mind what provisions will be contained in the proclamation. That being so, it would have been proper, I believe, to have told the House on this occasion what his thoughts are in that regard.

Finally one comes to clause 8 which sets out the executive functions which the hon. the Minister is to give to the council. Two of them are set out. They are education and community welfare, matters which properly in our view fall within the purview of a council of this kind. The third is “such other matters as the State President may from time to time determine by proclamation in the Gazette". Here again the Minister’s intentions are not set out in the Bill and he has not told the House a word about it in his speech. We of the United Party believe that you could safely extend the executive functions of this council even at this stage and that you could safely give the council the portfolios of finance and local government, which indeed was the case in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council to which I have already referred. Those were given in the initial stage and I believe that that extension of power could reasonably have been given in this instance to the Indian Council.

As I have said, we are supporting this Bill because we believe it moves in the right direction. It incorporates two new principles : the election of some of the members at least and the giving of executive functions to the council. However we believe that the method used is not the best method. Indeed, I believe, that doing it by proclamation has serious disadvantages, not the least of which is the fact that this House is not given any opportunity of expressing its views on what is intended in that regard. Whilst the Bill has these defects, we believe that it moves in the right direction in general. Accordingly, it will be supported by the Official Opposition during the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, before I reply to a few arguments and points of criticism from the hon. member for Zululand, I want to refer to a very interesting notice that came into my possession. I want to tell hon. members that I did not steal that notice anywhere; it just came into my possession. This notice is in connection with the Bill at issue here. The notice reads as follows—

Time: 10 a.m.

Venue: Whips’ Room.

Agenda: The event of the Session— Frank Waring’s Indian Bill !

Bribes are being received for those wishing to speak.

It is signed by the secretary, whose name I shall not mention here. This suggestion of “bribes are being received” surely makes it seem to me as if there were no persons who wanted to speak about this Bill. That is why the secretary had to offer these “bribes”. But that is not what bothers me. I refer again to the words “the event of the Session”. In my opinion these words were introduced to purposely, in a sarcastic way … [Interjection] … to refer to that matter disparagingly. It was done with the idea of being derogatory to the Minister in a sarcastic way. If the hon. member knows English he will probably know what this expression in English means: “Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”.

When we are speaking about a matter such as this, it is necessary to weigh up policies. I say it is necessary for one to weigh up policies. There are some of the younger members on that side of the House who probably do not know of an Act passed in this House, Act No. 28 of 1946, by the Opposition party’s predecessors when they were in power. If there are any hon. members on the other side of the House who want to investigate the matter, section 41 reads—

1. (a) in the Senate, by two senators;
2. (b) in the House of Assembly by 3 members; and
3. (c) in the Provincial Council of Natal, by two members.

Our people are familiar with this orange-coloured booklet, or whatever one calls it, in which the present United Party policy is stated.

Yellow reading-matter.

In this yellow-coloured booklet of the United Party it is stated …

You must however remember that is an interim policy.

Yes, we accept the possibility of this. But it is stated there that under the U.P.’s race federation policy the Indians will again be represented in the House of Assembly by two Whites and in the Senate by one White representative. It is very interesting that this is such a step backwards. In 1946 the United Party passed an Act, but that Act was never implemented because the National Party subsequently came into power. In 1946 the predecessors of the party opposite were prepared to give the Indians two representatives in the House of Assembly. According to that party’s new policy they are prepared to give the Indians two representatives. After 26 years that party is now taking a step backwards. That is the party that criticizes us because we do not move quickly enough and go far enough with this legislation. According to their new policy, there is now a 33 1/3 rd per cent reduction in the number of Indian representatives in this House of Assembly. As far as the Senate is concerned, there is a 50 per cent reduction. At the time they were prepared to give the Indians two representatives in the Natal Provincial Council. Those representatives could be Whites or Indians. After 26 years of backward progress in their attitude and standpoint in respect of one of the population groups in this country, we hear nothing from that party about this. I challenge the United Party to show me, in their present policy and the pamphlets about it, anything in connection with representation of the Indians in the provincial council. Since they determined and declared that policy of theirs, the United Party has had many conferences in Natal. The United Party is also the leading party in the Natal Provincial Council.

Where are the Nats?

No, listen to my argument now and do not make nonsensical remarks. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, they cannot follow the argument. The United Party, which is at the helm in Natal, and which of course also controls the provincial council there, have never in any case, since they declared this policy of theirs in that yellow-coloured booklet, thought of also giving the Indians a say in the provincial council.

So much for that. We know that in 1946 the Indians did not even want as a free gift that representation they got.

The United Party’s policy in respect of the Indians, as I know it, is that they want to integrate the Indian politically under their race federation system. They do not want to give the Indians representation in accordance with their numbers. Not only have the Indians in Natal increased in numbers throughout the years—I have the figures here, but I do not want to bother the House with them—but they have also increased proportionally in relation to the Whites. Notwithstanding this, under United Party policy they will have much fewer rights than they did in 1946.

Are you going to give them a homeland?

They have no say in the Natal Provincial Council and the United Party does not intend to give them any say either. In this Parliament, in the House of Assembly and in the Senate, the Indians will of course be completely dominated. They will only have a nominal say. Hon. members opposite must now listen to this question I want to ask them. It is a very simple question and I am going to ask it in very simple language: What, on the other hand, is the National Party going to give them? The National Party believes in separate development, and it believes that the Indians are a separate people. It believes that the evolutionary process of the Indians’ development, politically and constitutionally, is the correct and sound one. The hon. member for Zululand said: “It is a step in the right direction”. He said, in addition, that they had no further criticism, “but it does not go far enough”. He repeated this a few times. That is why I am stating this argument. The National Party believes that the pattern, the basis, was determined in previous legislation, inter alia Act 31 of 1968, which forms the basis of this amendment Bill. The National Party believes this to be the correct basis. The National Party also believes that the Indian Council can do much more, even at the present time, than the Indians will be able to do under United Party policy, as it applies to them. The National Party believes that constitutionally the Indians cannot progress more rapidly than they are able to and more rapidly than they can absorb. The National Party believes that the Council must not obtain greater responsibility than they are able to manage. I am referring here to the matters mentioned in connection with education and community welfare. The Indian Counoil knows the National Party’s policy —we do not beat about the bush as far as our policy is concerned—and there are no illusions. That is why the Indian Council has also acquiesced to this legislation.

I want to make a few general remarks. The term of office of the Statutory Indian Council that was appointed in September 1968, expired on 31st August, 1971, and the new members have already been nominated. That is why these members are now being retained. The establishment of the South African Indian Council was a step forward in the life and being of the Indian community. It can be confirmed that this Indian Council has done more for the Indians than any Indian organization has ever done before. The Council has become a channel of contact, and before the establishment of the Indian Council there was very little contact between the Government and the Indian community. With the creation of the Indian Council by this Government, the first legally recognized medium of contact developed between the Indian community and the Government. Previously there was only a scant measure of contact between the Government and certain individuals or organizations in the Indian community. This was, however, only sporadic; it was very irregular and never significant. Sometimes it was contact that developed out of a crisis or complaint situation. The result was that emotions were aroused during those discussions, and on all sides it was felt that this was ineffective. Basically the Indian community derived very little benefit from it.

In contrast with the situation that prevailed, the Indian community obtained a very important instrument, with the establishment of the South African Indian Council, which could advocate their interests. This made machinery available to the community to approach the Government at the highest level and to act in the interests of the Indian community when this was necessary. The result of this was that the Indians’ problems could be better understood, but it also resulted in the Indian Council beginning to gain a better understanding of the standpoint, the problems and the policy of the Government. Frequently there was a revaluation of situations, which promoted the peaceful coexistence of the various population groups, and appreciation was also expressed for the work of this Indian Council. In this connection I want to quote from what the Minister of Finance said in July, 1971, on the occasion of the inauguration of the new Republic Bank in Durban, in connection with the Indian Council. At the time he expressed the following words of appreciation—

In short, as a result of the creation of the Indian Council, the Indian community has gained a tremendous opportunity for dialogue with the government at various levels: with the officials, with the Minister and on occasion with the Prime Minister, and even with the State President. I know that these people have been accused of being “stooges”, but we also know that when hon. members opposite come along with their policy in respect of the Indians, they have not even consulted a single Indian. They cannot tell us what prominent Indians they have consulted; they are consequently talking at random.

Quite a few principles are embodied in this Bill, the first being that the Indian Council is now being enlarged. This is quite obvious. A number of members are elected members, i.e. this Council is partly elected. The hon. member for Zululand also referred to that. In addition the powers of the South African Indian Council are now also being extended and it is obtaining wider powers in connection with the Indians’ own education, community development and other matters Which the State President determines from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette.

I want to conclude by saying that this legislation is also a logical consequence of the policy of separate development of the National Party.

Mr. Speaker, I had imagined once upon a time that the jackass was the animal with the least sense of humour in the animal kingdom, but having heard the hon. member who has just sat down, I am coming to the conclusion that a “kudu” with a “poort” on it has even less. My hon. friend, the green member for Odendaalsrus, who called out “skande” when this notice was read out, has even less than the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because this is the event of the season. All of us are pleased to see the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs coming to this House with the Bill. For members of the Indian group on this side of the House, it is a very great, rare and “seldsame” occasion, and we welcome it. We have a problem, as we always have in dealing with the hon. the Minister, namely to sort out the rush of members on this side who wanted to help the hon. the Minister get his Bill through the House. For that reason we decided that there should be a small contribution made, and who should they make the contribution to, but to the secretary of the group? It is a highly profitable operation, and we welcome the hon. the Minister with his Bill. We are here to help the hon. the Minister and to support him. We are supporting the Bill, and I do not know why hon. members opposite should be upset about it. We are supporting the measure because we believe it is a measure which takes the Indian community a step further along the way which we would like to see them go. What interested me was that the hon. member for Koedoespoort did not say one word about the Bill, except with his last two words. He was talking about the policy of the Nationalist Government. I am very pleased indeed that he did so. He queried the policy of this side of the House. He cast reflections on the fact that we no longer provide for representation in the provincial councils by members of the Indian community; with justice, because our policy now is that they shall have a communal council on which they will be represented, which will replace the functions that they could be enjoying in the provincial council. The hon. member must therefore not say that it has been reduced by 50 per cent, or any big grandstand act of that nature. It means nothing at all. But neither he nor the hon. the Minister gave any idea whatsoever about what is in the hon. the Minister’s mind. We are entitled to ask whether there is anything in the Minister’s mind. Surely, we have here something which I regard as nothing less than a cloak-and-dagger act. The hon. the Minister is coming before us with a Bill to give him certain powers to do certain things by regulations things which are going to affect the constitution of the Indian Council. What those things are, we have no idea at all, except that somewhere or other, in the dark folds of the cloak in which this Bill is enfolded, there will be-provision for some people to be elected to the council.

Are you supporting this cloak-and-dagger Bill?

I am supporting it, because it is the best we can get from the hon. the Minister. At least, if we are going to support it, we would like to know —we invite the hon. the Minister to tell us —what he has in his mind. Will there be only the five additional members to be elected?

How can you have anything in a vacuum?

Well, Sir, that is not my problem. Does he intend to have perhaps 14 of the 30 members elected and 16 to be appointed, which would give them a safe majority? We would like to know. We really feel that this is something which is not a sound way of legislating. I am surprised that the hon. members on the other side can support it, that the Minister can simply say here, “give me the power to do certain things.”

But you are supporting it—not only members on this side.

They should be opposing it.

Perhaps, Sir, they should be opposing it. The point is that they are introducing the legislation. It is in furtherance of their policy. It is their policy which is being implemented. I am quite certain that none of them will tell us during the course of this debate how many of these members are to be elected and how many to be nominated. Surely, if anybody is going to stipulate something like that, it is the duty of hon. members on the other side to make sure that legislation which comes before this House contains the details, as the previous legislation did concerning the Coloured Representative Council, of what the Government had in mind. Why do the hon. members on the other side allow the Minister and the department to come before this House with something which is completely vague, literally a blank cheque given into the hands of the hon. the Minister?

It’s an enabling Bill, that is all.

As the hon. member for Zululand says, it is an enabling Bill which puts into the hand of the Minister the political future of the Indian community.

Up until now, what we have had has been merely a consultative body representing the Indian community, who were in fact a hand-picked group, picked by the hon. the Minister and his predecessors …

Be careful!

I am sure the hon. the Minister will not deny that it was a hand-picked group. He picked the people who, in his view, represented the Inidan community. That is a fair statement. I think the hon. the Minister can give us—a statement as to why all the members of this council are not at this stage to be elected. Is it perhaps that there is no trust between him and the members of the Indian community, or what is it exactly in his mind that makes him hold on to the powers to nominate what would probably be a majority in the council, as it is going to be reconstituted. I say “probably” because we do not know. The hon. the Minister has not told us.

I would like to deal with a point which was raised by the hon. member for Koedoespoort, namely the policy of the Government regarding the eventual aim and the path on which we are going, the first step of which we are now taking. The hon. member attacked us for our policy of bringing representatives of the Indian community into this House. He said that the policy of the National Party was separate development. I hope that the hon. the Minister or the hon. member for Rissik or the next speaker on that side will tell us what the ultimate aim of the National Party is in relation to the Indian community. Sir, I ask that question because I believe it is going to become of very great importance indeed as the political development of the Indian community takes place, and I believe it for this reason: Let us go back in history and look at the time of the French Revolution, which brought about one of the most violent changes in history. The King of France called a meeting of the three estates—the nobles, the clergy and the commoners—to meet a very great financial crisis in his kingdom. Sir, from that apparently innocuous act emerged one of the greatest revolutions the world had ever known—for one reason, and that reason was that as time went by the position of the moderates was out-flanked consistently and persistently by people who were extreme. I believe that if the Government are serious about allowing the Indian community to delop in a responsible political fashion, it is up to them to strengthen with every means in their power the position of the moderates in the Indian community. Sir, I want to know how the moderate element in the Indian community, who have more to lose than any other population group in South Africa should there be a revolution in our country, can be expected to maintain their position in their own community with the whole of their future simply a blank. Sir, they have more to lose than any other group because we have seen what has happened in Africa to the north of us, where every single major Asian community has been decimated by extremist Black nationalists. What we face is a political development in which the Indian community, standing side by side with the White community, as they do, with a very great community of interests with the White people, is being urged on by people who are becoming more and more extreme out of sheer frustration because of the lack of leadership on the part of Nationalist Government. It is the moderates who have to be reinforced in their position. These people do not know what the ultimate outcome of Government policy is going to be. It has been stated openly that there will be no homeland for the Indians. If there was going to be a homeland for them, then we could understand it. We know that the Coloured community are suffering exactly the same sort of frustration. How do you allow people to stand on a moderate basis of co-operation with White South Africa and that kind of thing, when it has been openly said by representatives of the Indians that they are prepared to go for Black power because the Black man in South Africa can treat them no worse than the White man has done?

Are your friends the Indian Congress?

Sir, I have no friends in the Indian Congress.

But you have just quoted them.

I am merely quoting what they are saying. They are not my friends; they may be the hon. the Minister’s friends for all I know. I do not know who they are, but that is a quotation which is being freely used, and it is being used because the Indian community, which is part and parcel of this South African conglomeration of nations, or whatever you like to call the multi-racial elements of South Africa, can see no clear future for themselves in terms of the Government’s policy, and what we have had here from the hon. the Minister today is merely an indication that we are going to take a step forward—towards what? The elective principle is now going to be adopted.

You said that it was the right step.

Yes, we agree, but I want to know what the Minister is going to do to strengthen the position of the moderate element in the Indian community to make themselves available for election in terms of the measure which we are now being asked to pass. There is no clear indication and no guidance from the Minister. I believe it is absolutely essential that in the course of this discussion we should get a clear indication from the other side as to what they envisage as the ultimate future and destination of the Indian community in South Africa. Sir, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has said quite clearly what our policy is. We envisage representation for the Indians in this House. I would like to quote what was said by a very distinguished South African, a person no less than the hon. member for South Coast, who said once that prededents have more force than any law. I want to say, Sir, that there is a tremendous force of precedent which is resident in this House. I say with all the seriousness at my command that there is a tremendous force of precedent which exerts pressure upon people to conform to the rich traditions of democracy which are present in this House and which have proved time and again to be able to discipline and to control any kind of extremism and that kind of thing when people in other countries and in other places have been included in parliamentary institutions of this nature. Sir, we stand here as the heirs of a tremendous, long span of history, we have a machinery, a procedure—and we have you yourself, Mr. Speaker, as the representative of the power of the State in this House—to which every member in this House bows in acknowledgment of your authority in this Parliament, and this is something which we as a White people would abandon at our peril if we simply gave it up and said to the Indian people : “Go off into some kind of limbo,” which is undefined, which is unknown constitutionally, which has not yet been settled or decided upon by hon. members on the other side. Sir, we say that this is a step in the right direction, but we think there is a very, very heavy onus on the Minister to tell as exactly how he sees the ultimate destination of the Indian community on the path on which he is starting them here today, a path which we support.

After listening to the hon. member for Mooi River, I wonder if Bill understands the Bill. In one breath the hon. member says they support this Bill, but in other respects he cannot (criticize) the Bill strongly enough. The hon. member wants to know what our thoughts are in connection with the Indian’s political future. He wants us to tell him in detail what we in South Africa envisage in respect of the Indian’s political development. The hon. member had the fullest opportunity, when he spoke a moment ago, to tell us what constitutional development the United Party envisages for the Indians with their policy of having the Indians represented in this House by Whites. Why did the hon. member not lift the veil for us a little as far as the future is concerned? Does he want us to play the role of prophets in this matter? Our whole policy is based on the sound principle of separate development, and on that basis we shall continue.

Homelands?

The Indian will not obtain representation here; he will have his own political dispensation.

Where?

Sir, allow me to express our great appreciation to the hon. the Minister for this Bill. Allow me also to express my great appreciation to him for the sympathetic manner in which he co-operates with the Indian Council. Sir, I have that evidence from Council members themselves, with whom I spoke about these matters. They all speak with great appreciation of the confidence which the hon. the Minister has already established in the Indian Council. It was a revelation to me that these people feel themselves free to liaise with the Minister, particularly in respect of what is sometimes a ticklish problem, the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Only recently they again talked to the Minister about that. They have so much confidence in the Minister that they come to him with all their problems and he listens to their representations. Sir, in accordance with stated policy, the National Party comes before the House today with this next evolutionary step in the process of the political development of the Indian population in South Africa. The nominated council is now being enlarged from 25 to 30 members by the addition of five elected members. This principle of nominated members in a limited executive capacity is nothing new in the history of South Africa. On the contrary, this concept of a nominated executive authority in South Africa is a very old one in the tradition of our political history. The old Cape executive authority initially consisted of nominated members; later it was supplemented by elected members, and these elected members were gradually augmented until eventually the executive authority consisted fully of elected members. In Natal the original executive authority was also appointed; later there were the elected members and these were gradually augmented. With the Government now making provision for the augmentation of the Indian Council, we are therefore now acting in accordance with tradition as far as the constitutional evolutionary process in South Africa is concerned. In addition I should like to point out that the present members of the Indian Council have accepted and carried out their duties since its inception with great dedication and responsibility. We are very grateful to the Council for that. We therefore cannot now summarily discharge the members to create vacancies for other members; that is why there is this augmentation of the Council to also allow for the better functioning of the Council. We give recognition to the good work they have done. They themselves know that the process towards greater autonomy is a gradual one, and they accept this with responsibility. In addition this Bill also takes the constitutional development of the Indians a step further in respect of their executive authority. Thus, in terms of our stated policy, we shall supplement their authority to an increasing extent by giving them greater responsibilities. As provided in this Bill, they will also have specific duties in respect of education and social welfare. I think there is a great need for social welfare work amongst certain groups of the Indians, and I think they themselves can handle this much more effectively. The fact remains that the Indians in South Africa are really in a very fortunate position in terms of this particular dispensation. The weaker groups in any community are quite frequently engulfed in respect of their own needs, particularly in a democratic system such as we have here in South Africa. Here the Indian community has the opportunity of singling out its needs in order to expressly bring them to the Government’s attention, and in many respects I think this is a privilege for a minority group. If the Indian population and the Council act, in future, in the same spirit of goodwill and with the same sense of responsibility they have displayed up to now, their constitutional development will of necessity have to accelerate. I think the hon. member for Mooi River ought to listen to this because he is so concerned about this matter, but apparently the hon. member is not interested in the answer. It depends on the Indians themselves whether they accept the responsibility as it will gradually be allocated to them and utilize it in a responsible way. We concede that there are certain ceilings for the present, but I do not regard these present ceilings as permanent political or constitutional institutions.

In a debate such as this I think it is a good thing for us to take a brief look at a few specific characteristics of the Indian community. In the first instance I should like to refer to the fact that in a period of about 100 years the Indian population has undergone virtually no form of integration with any other race in South Africa. I think this is noteworthy and we must mention it. There is already a need in the Indian population to preserve its own identity in South Africa. This is also in accordance with the National Party’s stated policy and we do not begrudge them the fact. Their religious and social systems are beneficial to the preservation of their own identities. We must also note that in general the Indians are economically active and self-sufficient. I will readily concede that there is, in fact, also great poverty amongst certain sections of the Indian population, but in general the Indian is to a large extent self-sufficient and therefore not a burden to the State. Since new statutory powers have now been bestowed on them, I think they can, to an increasing extent, provide for their own needs in the economic and other spheres. If we make a study of criminology in South Africa, it is also interesting to note that the incidence of crime is low amongst the Indian population. This is particularly the case in respect of juvenile offences. I think we can safely accept that this attests to a people which, to a large extent, brings up its children in a responsible way. Contrary to the popular conception, I want to point out that there is a large degree of diversity amongst the Indian population in respect of their professional life. On a percentage basis the professional diversity of the Indians accords to a large extent with that of the Whites. It is therefore not so that the Indians are chiefly drawn into commerce. The Indian population is playing an increasing role in our national economy. We find that Indians are particularly suited to engage in a large diversity of professions in our industry. It is interesting to learn that with the staffing of the third Iscor, which is being built at Newcastle, about 1 500 Indians will be needed to act in various capacities. This attests to the greater role the Indians will play in the whole South African economy in the future. Therefore it is also right that by the establishment of the Indian Council they should have greater responsibility.

What is the United Party’s dispensation for the Indians in South Africa? In sharp contrast to the realistic approach of the National Party, we get the United Party’s policy of limited representation: two representatives in the House of Assembly and one Senator in the Senate, who must all be Whites. Coupled with this excuse for political authority are the other lovely words of the United Party, i.e. race federation. It is not even an excuse for the meaning of the words “race federation”. More than a hundred years of limited political rights for the Coloured people of South Africa, meant nothing at all to them as a people. On the contrary, the Coloured people, like the Indians, will to an increasing extent obtain the benefits the National Party is establishing for them. I believe that the Indian population in particular will make use of this. How can such an excuse for political rights as the United Party offers embody any advantages for the Indians? I do not think that the Indians in South Africa will ever be so stupid as to exchange such make-believe as the United Party offers them for the benefits of their own authoritative body as embodied in the Indian Council which is being offered to them by the National Party.

Order! The hon. member should deal with the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Indians of South Africa have already indicated that they are prepared to co-operate with the Government in respect of this legislation. It is therefore also necessary for us to sketch the background of the Indians’ way of thinking and the light in which they see this Bill. I consequently also want to point out further that the plans the United Party had for the Indians in the past were actually pathetic. I shall quote briefly here from …

I hope the hon. member is going to quote from the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the Act, passed by the United Party in this House of Assembly in 1946, relating specifically to Indian affairs. I should like to point out that as far as electoral qualifications were concerned, they laid down a policy very much the same as the present Progressive Party policy. Here they mention, for example …

Order! No, the hon. member must deal with that matter on another occasion; we are dealing with the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, we hope that the Indian Council will profitably use this additional step in the constitutional evolution of the Indian population and implement it for the good of the Indian population in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs made a very sad admission this afternoon when he introduced the Second Reading of this Bill. He says that it is only since 1961 that Indians have been recognized as a permanent part of the population of the Republic. I do not know for whom he is talking. He can certainly only talk for his own Party because I can assure him that there are very many enlightened people in South Africa who have always accepted that the Indian population of South Africa is a permanent part of this country and have never ever placed any hopes in schemes of repatriation or anything of that kind. The hon. the Minister also said that he was not prepared to be rushed and therefore the Bill that he is offering here this afternoon does not incorporate a council which is to be an elected council. I myself think that it is an impertinence in this day and age to come to the House and offer the Indian population of South Africa, a population which has been here for more than a hundred years, incidentally, this pale substitute of an elected council. The hon. the Minister talks about this Bill conferring status on the Indian Council. We should not confuse status with power, because there is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill will not give the new council more power really than the old council had. I say it is an impertinence to offer this to the Indian population, a population which today numbers some 620 000 people according to the latest census. I say it is an impertinence because the Indian population, of all the groups, other than the White group in this country, of all the socalled non-White groups in South Africa, is by far the most educated group, by far the most culturally advanced group and the group which is entitled for these reasons to be given some meaningful say in the conduct of their own affairs.

Having said that, let us have a look at the Bill itself. According to the long title of this Bill the Bill will amend the 1968 Act so as to increase the number of members of the South African Indian Council. I do not see where that is going to happen. It does give enabling powers, but this may never take place. There may never be a proclamation which will increase the number of members of the council. It states furthermore that the Bill is going to provide for the election of certain members of the said council. Once again there is absolutely nothing in the Bill to say that the proclamation must take place, not at all. It is again a “may” and if it is in the opinion of the State President desirable to do so by proclamation. If it is not necessary or not considered wise to allow for the election of members, this too may never come into being.

The long title refers to the entrusting of certain additional functions to the said council. Nothing in the Bill is less certain than this; there is nothing in the Bill at all to ensure this. Apart from its indicating that the portfolios of Education and Welfare are going to be handled by the council, there is absolutely nothing laid down as to what additional functions are going to be performed by the council, none at all. We have nothing whatever in the Bill which tells us about the qualifications of the members, although the long title of the Bill states that the Bill is going “to further define the qualifications of members of the said council”. Not at all. It simply lays down again that the State President “may” lay down the qualifications of the members.

Indeed, I believe that we are being asked this afternoon to pass a Bill which gives no indication whatever as to its substance or as to its effect, because it leaves the functions and the constitution of the Indian Council entirely at the discretion of the Minister. We are not even told what the qualifications of the voters, in fact, are going to be. This, as far as I am concerned, is a no-Bill and I do not propose to support it.

I will concede that there is something in the Bill superficially which might embody what is known as an elective principle, but it is so vague and such an illusion that I, for one, am not prepared to give substance to a Bill which is as vague as this, which gives us absolutely no indication as to how the new council is going to function.

I do not believe that the Indian people as a whole see measures like this South African Indian Amendment Bill as putting them on the road to self-determination. Hon. members opposite may bluff themselves that this is the case, but I do not believe that Indians, by and large, those anyway who are politically minded, see this Bill as one which is going to put them on the road to self-determination. They rather see it in the light of the words of the hon. member who has just sat down and that, I think, is a much more accurate description, they see it as another embodiment of the policy of apartheid, of the policy of separate development.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member says “what is wrong with that”. He happens to support that policy; I happen to oppose that policy and the vast majority of the Indian population of South Africa also happens to oppose the policy of apartheid. That is why I say that hon. members opposite are bluffing themselves and I think the hon. the Minister is one of them, although I am not questioning his sincere desire to conciliate the Indian population. But I think he is bluffing himself if he thinks that coming with a Bill of this kind is in any way going to make the Indian population feel that they are being put on the road to self-determination. Far more do they see it as a further separation of themselves from the general stream of the social and economic development of South Africa.

What about the Coloureds?

Well, I opposed that as well. The hon. member ought to know that. I opposed that strongly and I oppose this too.

The hon. the Minister talked about consultation with the Indians. I do not believe that he has consulted really with what I call Indians who are politically conscious.

No, I have not consulted with the Indian Congress.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister should have and I shall tell him why. The Indian Congress, certainly as it existed originally, was far more representative of the real feelings of the Indian people than what has been created to fill what I can only call the vacuum which was created, and which has been filled by various councils, first the original council, the advisory council, which was then given a statutory function in 1968. All the measures which have been put on the Statute Book from the 1950’s onwards, and particularly throughout the 1960’s, measures which have allowed for bannings and house arrests and so on, have in fact emasculated political Indian opinion in South Africa. The once powerful Indian Congress was never banned. The hon. the Minister knows that. That organization, unlike other organizations, was not banned, but it was, emasculated because its leaders were banned and many of them are still under serious restrictions. I believe that in general the hon. the Minister does not really have the pulse of the Indian people under his finger-tips when he introduces this Bill as a Bill which is going to conciliate the political aspirations of the Indian people in South Africa. I do not want to go over the whole history of what has happened to the Indians in South Africa, because we know the history. We know what happened when the department took over in 1961, when it took over various functions from both the Central Government and the provincial governments in South Africa. It took over matters like immigration, the registration of births and deaths, education, welfare work, and so on. All this was gradually taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs. I want to concede at once, because I do believe in giving credit where I can give credit, that there are many officials in the Department of Indian Affairs who have been extremely sympathetic and tactful in their handling of the Indian population. I concede that at once and I think the Indian population is well aware of that. I also want to concede that there have been improvements, particularly as far as education is concerned. There is no doubt that in the field of education considerable improvements have been introduced since the setting up of the Department of Indian Affairs. Schools have been built, the qualifications of teachers have improved, and the whole standard of education has been bettered. I concede that right away. But none of this is a substitute for meaningful political rights, and the Bill we have to deal with today is concerned with offering some form of political representation, some form of political expression, for Indians, I do not believe that it fulfils a useful function and I must say this right away. I will admit, too … no, I am not going to admit anything else. I have got through my list of admissions …

You were going to thank me.

No, I am not going to thank you, because I think these are normal functions of a normal Government. I believe that improving the lot of the population, irrespective of colour, is the function of the Government, and I do not thank the Government for that. I am simply admitting that these improvements have taken place in certain respects, and I do pay tribute to the officials in the department who have handled their responsibilities with tact and, indeed, with sympathy.

As far as the local affairs committees are concerned, I think I know of only one that has proper executive functions and real responsibilities, and that is the Indian local affairs committee at Berulam. I know of no other. The others are all partly elected and partly nominated and they serve no real purpose at all. The hon. the Minister should have learned from the experience we have had as far as the Coloured Persons Representative Council is concerned. We know from experience that there is extreme dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured people about the way in which this council has been set up and the manner in which it is constituted. Although there are elected members and the way in which they were nominated and the personnel from whom they were drawn, namely from rejected aspirant elected members, should have taught the hon. the Minister a lesson. Yet he comes along here making suggestions which will result in the Indian community which is, as I say, the most advanced and educated and culturally sophisticated section of the non-White people, reacting with exactly the same dissatisfaction with the council that he is setting up that we have experienced as far as the Coloured council is concerned. In 1961 Dr. Verwoerd told the Coloured people that after ten years they would be in full control of their own affairs. The fact is that after 12 years they are still entirely at the mercy of this Party.

Order! We are not dealing with Coloured Affairs now.

No, Sir, but it is an example.

The hon. member must deal with the Bill.

I am just drawing an analogy, Sir, that is all. Exactly the same position applies now to the Indian people. As the hon. member for Koedoespoort, who has now disappeared, mentioned, more than a quarter of a century ago, Gen. Smuts actually offered the Indian representation in Parliament. He offered them three White representatives in the Assembly, one in the Senate and two Indians in the Provincial Council. It was rejected by the Indians then. A quarter of a century has passed since then, and the whole of the attitude of the Western world has changed as regards racialism, race discrimination and racial attitudes, and yet the hon. the Minister comes to the House, despite all these changes, with the largesse that he is offering in this Bill.

What do you suggest?

I will tell the hon. member what I suggest. I suggest meaningful political rights for the Indian people on the common roll. That is what I suggest. That is what my Party has always suggested. We suggest meaningful political rights for all races in this country on the common roll with qualifications which shall be based on education and economic qualifications. [Interjections.] I will send the hon. member copies of our policy which was laid down in 1959 and 1960. It is all in writing it has not changed, and hon. members can read, I hope. [Interjections.] Hon. members are not going to waste my time now, but the basic principle is common roll rights for qualified persons of all races in South Africa and representation in this House for persons of all colours on a common roll. That is the alternative. We have realized and everybody who has any political nous, if I may use that term, has realized that unless those rights are meaningful, people suffer grave disabilities. The history of the Indian people South Africa bears out the disabilities they have suffered under the Group Areas Act, and under statutory and conventional colour bars.

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

Well, hon. members over there asked me to describe our policy and that is all that I have done in brief.

But the hon. member must not allow herself to be led into temptation.

I will simply conclude by saying that, because I do not believe this Bill offers any meaningful political rights to the Indian people and because I believe that at this stage of our political history it is an impertinence to offer this emasculated, so-called “elected” council to the Indian people. I am going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with particular attention to the hon. member for Houghton. I think that absolutely true to the principles of her party she presented her standpoint here today. I think we can accept that since she was a member of the United Party in previous years, her ideas are actually a very clear continuation of the ideas of the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr. I want to tell her, however, that people in our world who think the way she does, in other words the so-called intellectual liberalists, have the basic problem that the more intensely they grapple with the problem of humanity, the more sketchy become the principles of their argument, so that they then come to light with a policy statement which is totally impractical and unrealistic in today’s world with its human problems. Another characteristic of the hon. member and her fellow-thinkers, is that they think they alone have a monopoly as far as absolute historical truth is concerned. She began her speech by saying, inter alia, that “enlightened people always regarded these Indians as a permanent group in the South African society”, or something in that line.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Shocking.

Simultaneously with this development, a recommendation was received from the Controller and Auditor-General to the effect that telephone revenue for the month of March, which had previously always been accounted for during April, has to be credited against the month in which it was earned.

Therefore, in compliance with the Controller and Auditor-General’s recommendation, a start is now being made to journalize revenue earned during this March, in this financial year.

This will provide additional revenue of approximately R12 million for the 1971-’72 financial year. Thus—on a non-recurring basis—telephone revenue earned over a period of 13 months, will be accounted for in one financial year.

In this manner, the deficit of R29,5 million is reduced to R17,5 million.

R10 million of this shortage is being financed by an additional Treasury loan, which means that the current financial year is being closed with a deficit of R7,5 million.

Because the Post Office has no reserve fund, this remaining deficit has to be defrayed from floating moneys, comprising, for example, money order and postal order moneys which are in transit. This provides a limited source of funds which can be used temporarily in times of financial stress.

1972-73

I now come to the new financial year. For the next financial year, the operating revenue is estimated at R321 million.

The operating expenditure is estimated at R280,7 million, which includes an amount of R26,8 million for depreciation.

This leaves an excess of revenue over expenditure of R40,3 million.

For capital purposes an amount of R139,8 million is required.

Together with a Treasury loan of R46,5 million, it is proposed to utilize the full excess of revenue over expenditure—R40,3 million—and the amount provided for depreciation—R26,8 million—for this purpose.

This gives a total of R113.6 million, leaving an amount of R26,2 million besides the deficit of R7,5 million with which the 1971-’72 financial year is being closed.

The total shortage of R33,7 million will have to be financed from the other sources recommended by the Franzsen Committee.

Significantly, the latest revenue figures show a rising tendency.

I am hopeful that this will continue— even increase in tempo—and that a portion of the required amount will become available in this way.

Self-financing

The Franzsen Committee’s recommendation in this regard reads—

1. (i) provision for the replacement of assets at historical costs,
2. (ii) additional provision to cover the higher costs that will apply when the assets are actually replaced, and
3. (iii) provision for the possible premature replacement of assets owing to technological developments; and

1. (b) the surplus of revenue over expenditure.

The surplus of the Post Office should also cover the annual redemption payments in respect of outstanding loans.”

The application of this recommendation which accords with acceptable practice in the private sector—especially in respect of depreciation—will create an increasing burden on the operating expenditure side.

Honourable Members will realize that the source from which the Post Office has to meet its operating expenditure, is the revenue it derives from the tariffs it levies.

The effect of redemption and interest liabilities on the tariff structure

Regarding Post Office tariffs in our country, it is a known fact that, in general, South Africa’s tariffs are of the lowest in the world.

In this regard I may mention by way of illustration that—as opposed to our 4c for inland surface letters—the inland letter postage rates in England, Germany, Holland, Sweden and Canada are 4,89c 7,06c 5,96c, 8,65c and 4,49c, respectively.

The rental for an ordinary telephone in our country is R24 a year. The installation charge is R20. Seen from a capital investment viewpoint—spread over the telecommunications system as a whole—it costs us, at ruling prices, approximately R1 000 for each telephone connection.

Earlier this month, the following report appeared in one of our English-language daily newspapers—

Our tariffs are still relatively low and in the long term interests of our country— especially in view of their effect on the national price structure—we desire to keep them as low as possible.

I know there is a school of thought that we must keep tariffs low by making more and more loans; we must increase our own debt and that of the country in order to maintain a false ceiling for our tariffs.

Honourable members will agree with me that there should be a reasonable relation between the costs of our services and their price—the tariff.

The Franzsen Committee found that at the current rate of loans and interest, the Post Office would within a few years have nothing left of its loans for capital investment; its redemption and interest liabilities would exceed its loan.

For the current financial year it is R29 275 000. For the 1975-’76 financial year it would have increased to approximately R51 million.

It is abundantly clear that these liabilities will unavoidably result in the imposition of an unreasonably high tariff structure on posterity—to its detriment and that of our country—unless we remain within reasonable bounds with regard to loans.

It is obvious, therefore, that our tariffs should be realistic and that they should make the proposed contribution to selffinancing.

The effect of large-scale tariff increases

It is undoubtedly the case that general and drastic tariff increases can create serious problems for the country’s economy.

During the Budget debate last year I said that it was our aim not to increase tariffs again tomorrow or the day after.

In fact, we thought and hoped that we would not need to do so for a number of years.

But in the light of the Franzsen Committee’s recommendations regarding self-financing and the contribution the Post Office ought to make from operating profits, the Department will make it its aim to increase tariffs gradually and in easy stages instead of doing so sporadically and on a large scale.

In the present economic climate and in the expectation that the signs of greater economic activity will in a growing measure continue in the new financial year—a development that will have a salutary effect on Post Office earnings—it is not proposed to introduce tariff changes during 1972-73.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister very kindly made copies of his speech available to me and one or two other members on this side. I have it here and am therefore able to quote his exact words. The one chilling sentence, overriding all others and staring the country in the face, is found on page 18, where the hon. the Minister said:

His Estimates, his hopes for the year 1971-’72, were out by more than R30 million— not R30 million up, but R30 million down. This is indeed the latest sorry chapter in the history of the ruinous inheritance, the damnosa hereditas, of the past policies of this Government.

Two points in the speech call for comment, points which are important. The first is the fact that the hon. the Minister has said that he accepts the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee in toto. The second point is that he by implication accepts the recommendations of the United Party in regard to non-White labour in toto too. I shall have to say much more about that in my speech tomorrow; because, as you can imagine, Sir, one would always like to go fully into the fine print of the agreements mentioned in his speech.

I did not say, however, you will note, that we necessarily accept all the recommendations, like the hon. the Minister does, of the Franzsen Committee in toto, because there were certainly certain parts of the hon. the Minister’s speech which indicated that he was accepting a recommendation of the Franzsen Committee that tariffs should, after 1973, gradually be increased to finance his programme. I am not committing myself and my party to that policy of tariff increase. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that last year, on exactly the same occasion, he made a promise in this House. He remembers his promise. Let us first read what he said in his Budget Speech today—

Now let us look at what he actually said last year. After having made the biggest tariff increase, postal increase and telephone increase in the history of the Post Office, a tariff increase which should have brought R50 million into his coffers, he said this on the 24th March, 1971 (Col. 3495)—

That was his word and his promise to the country—no further tariff increases for five years, until 1976. Does he still stand by that promise, in view of what he has told us today?

That is our aim.

We shall certainly tackle the hon. the Minister on that point. Apart from the customary verbiage, also in this particular speech, there are six different points that appear clearly, and all these are gloomy and ominous. The first is the one I have mentioned, that the expected surplus of R1,1 million has now been transformed into a shocking deficit of R29½ million, the biggest in the history of the Post Office. This is the biggest gap there ever has been in Post Office estimates between expectation of income and the expectation of expenditure.

The second ominous fact is that the expected income of the Post Office has failed to come up to expectation by R14,8 million. His high tariff policy has not produced the income he expected. In other words, in so far as one can speak of a point of marginal utility in regard to the price of Post Office services to the public, and in so far as one can speak of it in regard to a monopoly, that point has almost been reached, if it has not already been reached.

The third point emerging from the Budget speech is that expected expenditure for the current year has skyrocketed by R15 million. So, Sir, we have a deficit of R29,5 million for this year, and next year calculated on almost the same basis, it will be more than this—it will be R33,7 million. What a picture of the future! What a picture of the so-called advance in the Post Office!

The fourth point that is revealed in his speech is that his whole plan of trying to raise his capital needs to the tune of 62per cent from ordinary revenue, has completely collapsed. It has failed, as we told him last year it would fail. Indeed, Sir, in November last year, the Postmaster-General also said—

The economy took a dip and we had to cut back the capital expenditure from revenue from 62 per cent to 53 per cent.

The fifth point is that the telephone shortage is as bad as it has always been in the past, despite the figures given by the hon. the Minister. There is a small drop, of course, in the numbers of outstanding applications he has given us, but to what is that drop attributable? Firstly, to the stagnant economy, which is the fault of the Government; secondly, to the higher tariffs and the higher installation fees, which make it impossible for many, such as young couples, to afford a telephone; and, thirdly, to that “sundowner service”, which thousands of people have taken as a substitute for an ordinary service.

I do not wish to continue for much longer, but the sixth and final important point in this Budget speech of the hon. the Minister is that it is now perfectly clear that the Government does not know what the answers are to its problems, except in a few instances, and in so far as it knows those few answers, does not have the ability to carry them out.

Sir, it is customary, in a debate such as this, after the Minister in charge of an Appropriation Bill has spoken, to move an adjournment until a later occasion, so that the Opposition can discuss the contents of the speech and frame the necessary amendment. Before doing so, I want to warn the hon. the Minister that tomorrow during the debate we on this side shall do our very best to whip this lagging Government into some convulsive activity during the last year or two of its period of office. We shall come as the alternative Government of South Africa, with a clear-cut and concise policy for the future of our country. I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the question of the necessity of using the exact words in the marriage ceremony. I believe that the amendment in clause 2, this validation of marriages where the exact words have not been used, or where the exact requirements of the ceremony have not been complied with, is necessary to cover cases where default had occurred innocently. I do feel, however, that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give further consideration to this matter. Perhaps he should refer it to the law advisers to see whether it is not advisable to go back to the 1970 amendment. I believe, as I indicated yesterday during the Second Reading, that his insistence on the use of the ipsissima verba can lead to the possibility of collusion between spouses who no longer wish their marriage to continue and who do not want to go through the formality of divorce proceedings. They will be able to make statements if they so wish, to the effect that they deliberately did not do this or that at the time of the marriage so that they could have the marriage declared null and void if they so wished. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will not undertake to refer this matter back to the law advisers in the light of the experience which he has had over the past year and a half since the Marriage Act was amended, to find out whether he should not introduce an amendment next year in connection with the rigidity of the marriage service requirements.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot actually understand what the hon. member’s problem is. Surely the idea cannot be entertained that, where we have drafted a standard form or a standard formula, it can subsequently be used as an excuse to dissolve a marriage. I cannot see how the spouses themselves can use this excuse in order to dissolve the marriage, because then surely they themselves openly committed fraud. If, after the condonation of an irregularity, one of the parties to the marriage wants to use the irregularity as a reason for having the marriage dissolved, I am almost certain that he or she will not succeed in doing so. If one of the parties were to say that the words in the formula were not used correctly, or that he or she did not say “yes”, then it is probably something for the court to consider, but I cannot see how this can be a ground for a divorce. What we may in fact consider is whether we cannot allow the churches to use their own formulary in addition to this one. This is something one may look into. Approving the churches’ formulary for use instead of the one prescribed in the Act may be considered, but at this particular stage I am not prepared to tell the hon. member that we shall do so. I myself should first like to find out a little more about this. If it should subsequently appear that it is necessary to effect an amendment, we can come back to the House. In the meantime I shall try to find out what we can do and I shall ask the law advisers whether they can give the assurance that this is a problem which cannot arise.

I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his undertaking to consider this matter. I cannot go any further than merely asking him that this should be considered. I realize it is not possible for the hon. the Deputy Minister to give a reply today in connection with this legal problem which may arise as a result of the provisions of the Bill. The point with which the hon. the Deputy Minister did not deal, is the following: Under which circumstances will a person ask for the condonation of an irregularity? Surely the request will come from the parties to the marriage. They are the people who will ask for it. If they do not ask for condonation, and they admit that there was something wrong with the formula, then no one can do anything; then the marriage is void. That is my problem. But I accept that the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot give me an assurance in this regard today. I accept his undertaking that he will consider the matter and may perhaps effect an amendment to the principal Act in the future.

I think that is fair. The hon. member fears that there may be a loophole here which may be misused by people. It is a matter we will have to take into consideration if it should appear that there is such a loophole. We will then have to close that loophole, for otherwise the objects of the Act will be frustrated.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

During the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Minister to sketch for us the background to the amendment of the definition of “farmer”. Apparently the hon. the Minister misunderstood me, because he gave an explanation under paragraph (a), but it is paragraph (c) I am referring to, and I should now like to know from the hon. the Minister what the reason for the amendment is.

There has apparently been a misunderstanding. The definition of “farmer” is being amended to ensure that it will not be interpreted as relating only to a natural person, but that it can also include a juristic person. That is why provision is being made here for private farming companies. The omission of the words “either exclusively or together with some profession” actually does not alter the position at all. The words were in fact superfluous and are now simply being omitted. The pattern according to which allocations are made, is not being changed by this.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister in charge of this order, Order No. 6, is not in the House? I would suggest that this matter stand over until the Minister can be found. The Minister is not on his job. In the circumstances, I should like to suggest that this item stand over until the Minister can be found. In the meantime we can go on with the next item.

The Minister in charge of the next item, the Minister of Mines, is not here either.

In the circumstances I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the Minister is not here and I therefore ask that this matter too stand over. The Minister is trifling with the House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

When the debate adjourned yesterday evening I was making one or two general remarks, a few introductory remarks about the hon. member for Houghton, who is not in the House at present. I am very sorry she is not present because I wanted to discuss a few more matters with her. I began by saying that the hon. member for Houghton’s standpoint in connection with these amendments in this Bill are altogether faithful to the fundamental groundwork of her party’s standpoint, but I must also say that it actually forms a contrast with the speech which her leader, Colin Eglin, made, a speech which was included in the work Priorities for the 70s, in which they present the public with a heavily-sugared version of the changes they are seeking in South Africa. I said yesterday evening that with the so-called enlightened thinking of the Progressive Party, they are trying to bluff the general public in the sense that they want to pretend they are the great authorities and interpreters of history here in South Africa. I just want to make this remark and then quote her a passage from a very recent work by an Indian, Bridglal Pachai, The South African Indian Question from 1860 to 1971, in which he said inter alia, the following—

What are you quoting from?

I told you I am quoting from a work by an Indian. He grew up, I think, in the Ladysmith area and he is a professor of History in Malawi, Prof. B. Pachai. The point I want to make is that the hon. member for Houghton comes along and says that enlightened thought in South Africa has always adopted the standpoint that the Indian is a permanent part of South Africa’s population pattern. I want to say that this was not the case. Inter alia, I want to point to the Wragg Commission that was set up in the previous century. If there has ever been a Government in South Africa which is honest and consistent, it is the Government on this side of the House. If the initial policy was repatriation, then we were honest about it, and if it was acceptance then it was acceptance in the light of the principles laid down by this party throughout its history. The Opposition may judge for itself to what extent they have absorbed elements into their party that can run the gauntlet of this Indian writer’s critical thinking.

Yes, they are the “British” party.

What did you say in 1948?

I stated a moment ago what our standpoint is. I must, however, still make this remark in connection with the hon. member for Houghton. I cannot but interpret speeches such as the one she made yesterday evening as being speeches in which she passes the death sentence, not only on the White man in South Africa, but also on all the other population groups living in South Africa—every time I listen to such speeches made by her, I come to that conclusion. The more I listen to her, the less I am able to avoid the conclusion that she is a political Jezebel. The important point in this debate is that the hon. members of the Opposition, the United Party …

There she is now entering the Council Chamber.

I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton was probably tied up with an engagement.

I am very sorry too.

Unfortunately I could not wait for her. I shall perhaps do so later.

In the light of the amendments being introduced in this Act, I want the hon. members of the Opposition—I think it will be the hon. member for Port Natal who will be the next to speak—fundamentally, scientifically and meaningfully to state why they think that in principle they can vote for these amendments and why they think the hon. member for Houghton is wrong by not voting for them. They owe it to the South African electorate.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Zululand. I listened attentively to his speech. I think it was well prepared. There was a great deal of substance in his arguments. I think he laid a firmer foundation for the United Party than the speakers they pushed into a similar debate in 1968. However, there are a few aspects I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to. In connection with the first of these I want to quote the following from his speech yesterday evening. I quote from page GG 4 of the Hansard version of the speech he made on 21st March. There he expressed himself as follows about clause 2—

What he subsequently said is important. I quote further—

I am no authority on constitutional law or public administration, neither do I try to pretend that I am, but in the light of the knowledge I have about this, and in the light of what I have tried to read up about it, there are certain observations I want to make about this. Parliament is surely the seat of authority, a place with a certain composition and with specific functions. Inter alia Parliament passes legislation for the handling of particular situations. In terms of an Act certain powers can be given to a Minister. Inter alia regulations can be issued, because an Act can never cover every detail.

But no one disputes that.

I am now building up an argument for the hon. member for Mooi River, if he wishes to listen carefully and not be swept downstream. These regulations are then published in the Gazette and be read by hon. members. A member then has the right to raise the consequences involved in this House and this can then be discussed thoroughly. Secondly, the Governor-General, now the State President, could previously, in terms of the South Africa Act exercise the power of issuing proclamations, as we have here in the new section 1 (a). Surely the place, content, history and use of proclamations ought not to be unfamiliar to the hon. members for Zululand, Mooi River and Port Natal, because they are actually members of the English history tradition in which the use and origins of proclamations have surely had an exceptional history. This ought to be clearer to them than it is to me …

Before the rinderpest.

The hon. member for Mooi River must listen to the argument for once. Those hon. members ought to know this better than I, who come “from the farm”. Those hon. members ought to know the constitutional history of England better than I do because, after all, these proclamations have their origin with the King and in 1961 they did vote for the Queen. The origins do lie with the King or Queen of England, who made certain laws by means of proclamation. But they ought to know that those far-reaching effects of this old practice were watered down by the growth of the parliamentary system. In addition, those hon. members ought to realize that the parliamentary system did not reject this holus-bolus, but realized its possibilities and that it was tempered into something that became a useful instrument in the hands of a good and responsible government, such as that of the National Party. In addition hon. members ought to know that it was specifically Great Britain which, particularly by way of proclamations, governed its Commonwealth of Nations and South Africa in particular. Therefore they ought to know as well that it was specifically the United Party which used proclamations issued by the Governor-General in a large variety of the laws they themselves made. I now find it interesting that specifically those members are objecting so strongly to this. I now quietly ask myself whether the hon. members are not afraid because they did not want to trust themselves with that, having perhaps done something wrong themselves and now thinking in their heart of hearts that the National Party will abuse that instrument in this method of government, which is a normal and natural way of doing things. I want to quote from what the hon. member for Zululand said. I know him to be someone who tries to give matters thorough consideration. He said: “A proclamation which is not even to be laid on the Table of the House for discussion as is the proclamation referred to later in the Bill in clause 10 (a).” I now want to ask the hon. member for Zululand if he is really convinced deep down that the standpoint he adopted yesterday is in fact an altogether correct one. He is a legal man; I am not. He is probably also versed in law. Is he absolutely certain that the proclamations mentioned in this measure may not be discussed in this House. My personal feeling, after having viewed this matter, is that this will, in fact, be possible and that the hon. member miscalculated when he made that statement. I did not discuss this relevant matter with the hon. the Minister. There was no opportunity to do so. I should like the hon. the Minister, with his superior knowledge, to interpret this for us. The proposed insertion of section 1A in the principal Act, however, also brings many other interesting considerations to the fore. On the one hand the hon. members of the Opposition are objecting to the introduction of proclamations, but on the other hand they request the Government—and state it very urgently in their arguments—please to make rapid progress so that this council will eventually consist fully of elected members. It seems to me they are contradicting themselves slightly. While our side of the House, in the light of history, in the light of the South African situation, wants to handle this matter so that, on the one hand, we give the Indian community what they ought to have, on the other hand ensuring that there is no disturbance in our community, they are specifically the people who, by objecting to the proclamation, are preventing us from carrying out our normal obligations. We do want to move as far as the Indian community is concerned, but we do not want to do so in such a way that we allow problems to develop in South Africa. Just allow me to tell the hon. member for Houghton that even though it may not always appear so to her, the National Party and its members are people who are sensitive to the rights and privileges of people. I want to tell her that if there is a population group in South Africa which partially obtained its freedom through hardship and difficult days, and whose freedom is probably more threatened than the freedom of any other population group in the world, it is the group represented by the National Party. I can also tell her that in our discussions with the Indian community we are perhaps also much more geniune and sincere than many—I do not want to include her— of the so-called “enlightened intellectuals” that revolve around her. Here I just want to remark that what we in South Africa need is not “enlightened intellectuals”, but more intelligent people.

Actions speak louder than words.

What is of further importance is that this proclamation has been introduced after consultation with this Indian Council. This is very important and I also want to put it to the hon. members of the Opposition that, owing to the situation that history or circumstances have placed us in, in what we are doing for these people we want to join them in insuring their development, growth, security and peace in their own community. That is why we have inscribed so very clearly in this legislation that we are doing this after consultation with these people. I should like the hon. member for Port Natal to tell me how they want to consult with the Indians, because I gain the impression that they only want to do certain things and then by a certain “token representation” tell the general public that they did liaise with them. I should very much like to know that. In other words, we do in fact want to act here only after consultation with these people. Incidentally, allow me to say that the hon. members of the Opposition frequently speak, I almost want to say disparagingly of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. That side of the House very frequently levels the accusation that it is simply a matter of his being very disinterested in the Indian community and the Indian Council. This hon. Minister handles sporting matters, Indian Affairs and tourism. I find it interesting that when some or other English newspaper drew up a cabinet for that side of the House, that newspaper simply appointed three Ministers to handle this hon. Minister’s portfolios. As far as I am concerned this legislation embodies the fact that the Minister and his department, and ourselves as members of the National Party, really want to talk to the Indian community. The hon. members of the Opposition had many objections because this council is not immediately going to consist solely of elected members. When I read their 1968 speeches, an interesting fact was that I actually had to look, reading between the lines, to find out where the people felt so strongly at the time about this matter that the members should now suddenly be elected. I read the speeches of the hon. members for South Coast and Durban North, but I could find no indication there. It seems to me as if they want to fit the National Party’s policy into their whole race federation plan. If the United Party agrees with us to such an extent that they also accept these amendments in principle, and are in favour of us making rapid strides —the hon. member for Durban Point said in a 1968 debate that the United Party had already been thinking along those lines 14 years previously, i.e. in 1954—I am amazed they do not have more appreciation for those members of the Indian Council who were appointed by the hon. the Minister. They must have more appreciation for those members for the work they did and the dedication with which they did it, if that is, according to them, the direction in which we must move. If the hon. members agree with the principle contained in this Bill, why do they not trust the National Party as a good Government, and why do they not accept the fact that we are responsible people who can handle the matter?

I also want to make a few general remarks about what the hon. member for Mooi River said. He raised, inter alia, the following few matters. He said:

In addition he made the following remark :

Ourselves apparently—

My problem with the arguments of the hon. members of the Opposition is that they make use of a terminology, of random snatches from human history that are either foreign to the South African situation or very wrongly used here. The hon. member for Mooi River speaks here of the French Revolution, but I cannot see why he, as a responsible member who would like to converse with the “moderates” in the community, latches on to the events of the French Revolution, particularly when we look at the atmosphere in which the French Revolution developed and the consequences it had. I want to tell the hon. member that in viewing the United Party’s history I can never really see what their standpoint was in respect of leftist groups that developed in the Indian community. If, in the language of the hon. member for Mooi River, one is then a “moderate”, and if one wants to involve the normal people in one’s community, I cannot see that one can do it any way other than the way the National Party wants to do it. When the National Party makes its choice of the people it designates to serve on this council, it specifically chooses the really moderate and responsible people in the Indian community. The National Party then tells them :“Gentlemen, we must handle the situation in South Africa. We want to do so as moderate and normal people because the majority sent us here and we specifically want to co-operate with them because you represent that particular element in your community.”

What is the ultimate destination?

It is a very interesting question the hon. member is asking. He asks what ultimate destination of these people is. I now want to tell the hon. member—and I am being very honest when I say this—that in many of the fields in which one works one cannot see the ultimate destination, because what the ultimate end will be is a “hypothetical” question. What I can tell the hon. member is that the fundamentals of our reasoning are that we recognize the diversity of peoples living in South Africa. The attitude with which one implements one’s policy is the attitude of the normal, the natural and the good in every member of those groups. The end of it all one can never see, because even the Caucasians cannot see that far. Then one knows that the road one is travelling will be a road that will normally give satisfaction, prosperity and security to the majority of people in those groups. This is to a certain extent in contrast to the United Party’s policy and in absolute contrast to that of the hon. member for Houghton. If one wants to judge the amendment of these Acts one must particularly do so in the light of the basic aspect. With that I want to conclude, because I know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday evening you were particularly strict about the rule that members must confine themselves to the Bill. But I just want to quote you the National Party’s point of departure. In 1962 Dr. Verwoerd very clearly stated (Hansard, col. 95):

In just these few short sentences all the principle elements of this Bill were summed up by Dr. Verwoerd, and that as far back as 1962. But let us just briefly contrast with that the Opposition’s point of departure, the fundamental basis according to which they want to attack these amendments. I just refer them once more to their constitution, to the point of departure in the top paragraph, according to which they want to deal with the population questions of South Africa for the sake of racial peace. They refer to the Bantu, to the Coloured people and to the Indians, but without determining any real basis. I also want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow, who in his work simply writes off the Asiatic group as a minority that one need not really discuss.

With that I have made my speech. I want to say that the amendments in this Bill are faithful to the principles of the National Party and are aimed at ensuring peace and prosperity in South Africa, for the benefit of the Indian community as well.

Mr. Speaker, I must say to the hon. member who has just sat down, that I always listen to him with a great deal of interest and a good deal of respect; because I respect his views, which are generally put to this House in a well considered manner. But today I must say that he surprised me somewhat by trying to present an argument which was so illogical. If the hon. member has any basis for the principles he stated here this afternoon, that of separate development for the Indian group, I would say to him that he has no moral foundation for it unless he can offer them a homeland as well. Until he can do so, there is no moral justification for the stand that he takes. However, I accept the hon. member’s sincerity. All I do is to question his ability to understand the position and to think it through to its logical conclusion. He also dealt with proclamations. Other members on this side of the House will respond to that particular point.

He asked me, in particular, to explain how, according to our principles we could support this Bill while at the same time criticizing the hon. member for Houghton for opposing the measure. I will deal with that very shortly. Before I do so, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it surprises me … I should like to have his attention for a moment; he is not often with us. Sir, the hon. the Minister does surprise me. I think this is the first Bill he has introduced in the House for some while. When he is in the House he continually interjects in regard to other Ministers’ Bills, but when he has one of his own he is not even in the House to see it presented.

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

Sir, I should like to return to the Bill and, in doing so, I should first of all like to say that I was particularly disappointed with the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude to this legislation. It disappointed and surprised me that she should have decided that she could not support this amending Bill. I must confess that I, too, had serious doubts when I first read the Bill, but the decision I had to come to, and most of us had to come to, was: What is the criterion of the Bill? As I see it, the criterion of this Bill is to bring a benefit to the Indian community. In that respect, it is certainly a step forward. I am surprised that the hon. member for Houghton did not see it in this light. It certainly is a step forward. The improvement may be very slight and in that respect I would agree with the hon. member for Houghton, but let us face the facts. Over the years there has been little enough improvement in the lot of the Indian community. I know, probably as well as anybody, the problems they face, the day-to-day problems in respect of housing, proclamations, reproclamations, and problems under the Group Areas Act. As much as I would like to see this Bill go a great deal further than it does, I find myself, and my colleagues find themselves, in the position that we have no alternative but to support it, because it is nevertheless, despite our criticisms, an improvement on the existing legislation. The hon. member for Houghton’s attitude is particularly strange. It is tantamount to saying: “Since I cannot let you have the whole loaf, I do not think you should even have a slice of the bread.”

It is not even a slice; it is a crumb.

This Bill clearly states that the Indian community, through the new council, is going to have some say, although not enough, in certain matters which they did not have before. I think the hon. member for Houghton’s attitude is particularly strange in this regard. For instance, one of the powers they will have is in connection with community welfare. There is probably nothing which has affected the Indian community to a greater extent than community problems and community welfare. I am particularly pleased to see that at long last they are going to have some voice in this respect. The hon. member for Houghton, I know, will agree with me that their problems in regard to housing, their amenities generally, group area enactments and social welfare have hit the Indian community particularly severely for many years.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Houghton agrees. Surely, then, this Bill deserves support, because it is giving to the Indian community some say in these very aspects, and for this reason I think her attitude was strange. For the hon. member for Rissik’s information this is to my knowledge the first time since 1946 that something positive is being done for the Indian community in South Africa. It is the first time since 1946 that they will be given an opportunity to have their voices heard in matters that vitally affect them. They will now have a voice—this was ignored by he hon. member for Houghton—in matters such as the 38 000 families moved under the Group Areas Act. They will now be able to say what they wish to say without any fear of being intimidated or victimized, because they now have the right to free expression of opinion in regard to these matters. Surely the hon. member for Houghton must be big enough to admit that her attitude to this Bill was wrong. If she is prepared to allow things to go on as they have been over the past years, and if she is prepared to say to the Indian community that she cannot see them having any voice at all in matters such as their community welfare, I think she has nothing to be proud of, and I want to say that I personally am surprised, knowing her attitude in regard to matters of this nature in the past. Not only am I surprised, but indeed very disappointed, knowing what her attitude is.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort again spoke of the 1946 Act. In fact, he made the same speech as he made in 1968. All he needed to do was to have it photostated and Tabled, and it would have meant the same thing.

That is quite wrong.

It is true, as the hon. member for Koedoespoort says, that the 1946 Act did offer more, much more, than we are offering today, in fact than the Government is offering. If I were to say that that is not so, obviously it would not be true. I admit that it is so. But what the hon. member did not say was that the 1946 Act was rejected by the then leaders of the Indian community. They rejected the Act of 1946 because their attitude then was that they wanted all or nothing.

Yes, that is so.

The hon. member agrees. They felt then that they wanted all or nothing. This brings me back to the hon. member for Houghton. The Indians in 1946 wanted all or nothing and decided to take nothing instead. The hon. member for Houghton today says that she wants all or nothing, and she prefers to take nothing instead. I have spoken to a great many of the past leaders of the Indian community in regard to their attitude in 1946, and I can assure you, Sir, that they admit today that that attitude was wrong. If given the choice and if they could turn back the clock, they would now accept the 1946 Act. If they had done so then, how much less would the problems of the Indian community have been than they are today. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also omitted to say that not only did the Indians reject the 1946 Act because they wanted all or nothing, like the hon. member for Houghton does in 1972, but that in 1949 the Nationalist Government of the day rescinded the franchise proposals in the 1946 Act. I am particularly dealing with the 1946 Act in regard to franchise because this Bill deals with franchise. The other aspects I shall ignore. In 1949 the Government rescinded the 1946 Act franchise proposals. Then, of course, it scrapped the Act entirely in 1951. I do not think that the hon. member for Koedoespoort can refer to the 1946 Act with any degree of pride. He should rather refer to it with a good deal of shame.

You cannot refer to it with pride.

I should now like to turn briefly to the hon. member for Newcastle. He deserves no more than a brief reference because his knowledge of the Indian community, I must confess, and sadly so, is very limited indeed. He has a large Indian community in his constituency and one with a great many problems at the present time because of developments in the Newcastle areas. It is very sad that he cannot even agree with his own M.P.C. in the Newcastle area with regard to the treatment of the Indians. I hope that when we discuss this particular group …

Are you referring to the stinking Prog stories?

Order!

It seems to me you poke your nose into everything.

Sir, in dealing with groups such as the Indians and Coloureds, I am not concerned with anybody’s stories; I am only interested in their particular plight, and I say to that hon. member that he is not in the least interested in the plight of the Indians in Newcastle. Be that as it may, I do not want to waste time …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Speaker, I have no time to answer questions from an hon. member who knows nothing about this particular problem. I would like now to turn back to the hon. the Minister, since this is his Bill, and refer to a remark which he made in his Second Reading speech, in which he said that the Indian community had made great strides over the past 10 years. I want to say to him that I agree with him entirely. The Indian community has made great strides indeed, but I would also like to say to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs: No thanks to the Government whatsoever. The strides which the Indian community have made, they have made entirely on their own, despite all the difficulties that have been placed in their way. I see behind the Minister of Indian Affairs, the Minister of Planning looking at me in a particular manner, and I want to say to the Minister of Planning, too, that it is only in the last 18 months that I personally have seen a better attitude on the part of Government departments to the problems of the Indians.

There is no question about it, Sir; the Indian community has been shamefully treated over many, many years. I am not going to say that they have only been shamefully treated by this Government; they have been shamefully treated by previous Governments in the past as well. I make no excuse for that; this is in fact history. This particular group was shamefully treated even before Union, but to their everlasting credit they have continued to make progress; their self-help has been remarkable and, as I said before, they owe no thanks to the Government for the progress they have made. Sir. I do not want to refer to the history of the Indian franchise in South Africa over the last 100 years, but I would like to remind the House and the Minister, who had so much praise for the Government’s actions in regard to the Indians, that 100 years back the Indians had a great deal more franchise rights than they enjoy today; they enjoyed more franchise rights than are being offered to them today.

I mention this merely because this Bill deals with franchise rights. I do not wish to detail these rights, but I hope hon. members will study this Bill and history and see just what in fact this Bill is offering the Indians. This is only the second occasion in 100 years, to my knowledge, in which an improvement is being offered to them as far as their franchise rights are concerned. Sir, the Minister is on record as saying that he would give them a fully elected council the moment they asked for it. I have not got the reference here, but the hon. the Minister said that he would grant them a fully elected council the moment they approached him and asked him for an elected council, as I remember it. The Indian Council have now asked for an elected council, and it is for that reason that the hon. the Minister has presented this Bill, but, strange to relate, nowhere in this Bill does he say how many members of the council are going to be elected. This, to my mind, is a most strange thing. The Bill certainly makes provision for elected members of the council; that is quite clear, but for the life of me I cannot understand why the Minister does not say that there will be five, 10 or 25 elected members. Nowhere in the Bill does he say what the number will be. Surely the number should have been stated in this Bill?

Order! That point has been adequately made.

I submit that this is probably the most important part of the Bill.

: Yes, but the argument has been made repeatedly and very adequately.

Can I suggest then that the Minister owes this House a detailed explanation as to why it is so. This faltering, nervous step towards a democratic elected Indian Council is certainly to be welcomed, as I said before, but I would like to remind the Minister that the Indian Council will have no strength whatsoever until it is a fully elected council. We may pass all the plaudits we wish on the activities of individual members of the council and of the council generally, but until that council is a fully elected council it will not earn the respect and get its due from the Indian community.

What about the Coloured Council?

I am not dealing with the Coloured Council, but I would say exactly the same thing applies.

Order! The hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by interjections.

The hon. the Minister knows that if he wants an effective council it must be a fully elected council and I would appeal to him to ensure that this council be fully elected as soon as possible. We welcome the Bill because it heralds a new era in Indian affairs in South Africa, but for democracy to work, as I said just now, the people must have a choice of their representatives.

There is a clause in this Bill which gives me some concern. It is portion of clause 6 (h), which says that a member of the council may be dismissed for being guilty of conduct which in the opinion of the Minister after consultation with the council makes that person not a fit and proper person to be a member of the council. Well, obviously under certain conditions a person should be expelled, as happens in this House too, but I would like to see that those conditions are clearly defined in this Bill; because I would like to warn the hon. the Minister that should he choose, for perhaps some very good reason, to dismiss a member of the Indian Council, and that reason is not clearly stated in the legislation, and that member happens to be an elected member of the council, one can foresee the difficulties which will arise with the people who sent him there to hold that office.

So I would say to the hon. the Minister that for the sake of the strength and the safety of this council, if he does not want to see the council completely destroyed, he must clearly define every single ground on which, and every step he can take to dismiss a member of that council, particularly if he is an elected member. It does not really matter if he is a nominated member, because the Indian electorate would no more tolerate him dismissing a member whom they elected except on clearly stated grounds, than would any member of the White electorate do so. I think this is one point which must certainly be cleared up during the course of this Bill. I would like a detailed explanation here as well from the hon. the Minister.

The Indian council has set out certain things that they would like the Minister to consider in regard to the new council and he has set these out in the Press statement of 20th January of this year. These included certain items which rightly fall under the definition of community welfare. I hope that these things which are set out in the Minister’s Press statement of 20th January will be included in this definition of community welfare. That deals with the trading difficulties of the Indian traders. Another item deals with free trading areas and the encouragement to Indian traders to resettle themselves and the question of alternative accommodation. This appears in the Minister’s own memorandum, and I would like to know from him whether he believes that community welfare does not also fall within those headings which appear in his memorandum. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes that community welfare includes the provision of provincial travel permits. This is nowhere mentioned in the Bill and yet it is probably one of the greatest bones of contention among the Indian community. I am surprised that it is not mentioned, but I take it to mean that under community welfare he would be able to include this as well. I do not believe that he can just choose to ignore this particular aspect.

In conclusion I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that the socio-economic upliftment of the Indian community is all very good—it is something which is essential—but it is absolutely worthless in legislation unless it is accompanied by political rights. In terms of the Bill the Indians will receive political rights. We do not know to what extent. However, we welcome the Bill because it is a move in the right direction and I personally hope that it is a move too, away from the prejudices which we still have in the late half of this century which is nothing more than a carryover from the past.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot neglect to congratulate the hon. member for Port Natal on a portion of his speech. I almost felt like just leaving it to him to plead the National Party’s cause, because he even went so far as to attack the hon. member for Houghton because she did not support these amendments.

The United Party’s actual objection, as far as I can see it, really boils down to a few points: that considerably more executive powers are not being given to the council; that the council is not totally an elected council; the fact that certain matters will be regulated by means of proclamation by the State President; and that the Minister does not give a more detailed explanation of what is to happen in the future. I would actually not be able to blame them if I could accept that these are people who do not know the circumstances in this country. However, in the amendment of this Act we must take into consideration the circumstances in the country. We must identify the circumstances of the Indian group in South Africa with the Amendment Bill now before the House. We must look at the position of the Indians on the continent of Africa and compare this with their position in Southern Africa.

He will not speak about that.

We must take into consideration the fact that since 1961 the Indian population has been accepted as a South African population group. What is more, that Indian population group has itself accepted this. That Indian population group in South Africa is absolutely not in favour of integration. They fully support the separate development of their group as such, as the White population group of South Africa also does. If we examine those few points we can better understand the amendments we want to introduce to the Act and we can also better understand why it is like this and not as the United Party wants it.

In passing I just want to say—I see the hon. member for Houghton is on the point of leaving; I am sorry that I did not get to her sooner, but I did not know that she wanted to leave the Council Chamber—that the hon. member for Port Natal found fault with the hon. member for Houghton. I can also understand this, because the hon. member for Port Natal and the United Party regard the hon. member for Houghton with jealousy. If one goes back in history to the Indian legislation of 1946, it will be found that the United Party’s policy of that period is the present-day policy of the Progressive Party and the hon. member for Houghton.

That is correct.

That is actually why the hon. member for Port Natal is so annoyed about the matter, because that policy was their policy of integration, of representation in this House …

It is still their policy !

It is today the policy of the Progressive Party. They took over that policy. The Opposition no longer has the policy it had in those days, and that is why the hon. member for Port Natal and the United Party are jealous of having lost that policy of theirs and of the fact that the present-day Progressive Party has taken it over. Before the hon. member leaves us, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she must remember one thing, i.e. that her party advocates integration and that her view of the future is that her descendants must merge with the Indian population, but the Progressive Party does not take into consideration that the Indian population is not prepared to integrate with the Whites and the hon. member for Houghton. They do not support integration and want to remain a pure group on their own. We must live with the existing circumstances. The United Party is in a tremendous hurry and they now want the Minister or the Government to determine the future existence of that elected council. Specifically because the Government co-operates with these people—that is what is very important and the hon. member for Rissik also mentioned it—these words are used each time in this legislation: “after consultation with the Indian Council”. In other words, the Government and that Indian Council are on a friendly footing and they reason matters out and consult each other. That is why it is better for us not to lay down a fixed policy now or make provisions in connection with that Indian Council with a view to the distant future. This is unnecessary and actually ridiculous when one can co-operate well with people, when one can consult with them, to decide what must be done. Quite a few of the executive powers this council is going to have and to implement, have already been determined. Why, then, already decide today that in the future it is going to be done this way or that way? It is surely ridiculous, and adults do not argue in that way. When one is on a good footing with a certain population group one can reason these things out from time to time. The hon. member for Zululand’s argument that with these proclamations the United Party does not have a chance to discuss them, is surely nonsense. That Minister surely has a Vote that is discussed by the House each year. When proclamations are issued and agreements concluded with that Indian Council, the United Party surely has the fullest opportunity to discuss what has taken place, to point out mistakes and to say what they think about that. I think there was also an insinuation—I do not know whether it was stated—that the Minister and the Government are also allocating too many powers and that after that consultation they can refuse to do certain things. The United Party must now remember that it is specifically the policy of the National Party and this Government to let those people develop individually and independently. Therefore, when they come along with concrete requests, acceptable to the party, they will not be refused. Neither will it be wrong at all if this council comes along with proposals not acceptable to the Government, because this Government has its policy and is not ashamed of it, and we stand by our convictions. I cannot see anything wrong in that. I think these amendments before us are an asset to South Africa, that they are definitely an asset to the Indian Council and that it is the object of this Government, after all, to let them develop in the course of time, by consultation, as they are able to do so. They can develop fully and independently, and all the possible rights they can manage will certainly be granted to them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mayfair almost frightened me when he rose to his feet and began to tell us how well the hon. member for Port Natal had stated the policy of the National Party. I hope he does not want to follow the example set by his M.P.C.

The hon. member for Rissik had a few words to say here about the repatriation policy of the National Party. It is very interesting and we would like to know from the hon. member what became of this repatriation policy of the National Party. What I find even stranger and what astonishes me more all the time is what the hon. the Minister said yesterday afternoon in his Second Reading speech. When he concluded, he said—

In view of this I want to know from the hon. the Minister how it is that the hon. member for Rissik can say that this legislation is a purposeful part of the course adopted by the National Party? For how long has the National Party been pursuing this course? Since 1961? This is, after all, a party which has been in power for such a long time in South Africa.

The hon. member for Rissik also attacked us in regard to the question of proclamations. I see the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs is in the House. I think the hon. the Minister should consult with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs and submit to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs his legislation on the Coloured Persons Council so that the hon. the Minister could possibly follow an example and come to this House and make it clear to us what his aim is with this Indian Council. The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us what he envisaged, and we were able to discuss the matter in detail. We could see what the hon. the Minister’s aims were. But with the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs we simply have to guess what is going on in the back of his mind about the future of the Indians.

The hon. member for Rissik said that the end of the road for the Indians in terms of Government policy was a hypothetical question. I know that the hon. member for Rissik and those who think as he does, the hon. members for Waterberg and Sunnyside, are homeland people. If it depended upon them they would steer the Coloureds and the Indians in the direction of a homeland.

The original institution of the Indian Council was, in the words of the hon. the Minister, a nominated, administrative-consultative body with 21 members, appointed by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. The then Minister told us, and this hon. Minister repeated and confirmed it in 1968, that the National Indian Council was only an interim measure in order to establish the ultimate pattern of representation. The ad hoc committee of February, 1967 recommended to the hon. the Minister that this Council should be a representative council, in other words, an elected body of the Indian community. But the only development has been more rights by way of proclamation under this hon. Minister. We can only continue to hope that this hon. Minister will allow more people to be elected to this Indian Council than he appoints. The original legislation established the framework and one would have expected that four years, from 1968 to the present, would have been sufficient time for the hon. the Minister to complete his consultation and to give substance to this framework by means of positive steps. But what do we find? We find that this hon. Minister is merely requesting rights for further consultation in order to supplement then the framework of this body by way of proclamation—his opinion, and not the opinion of this Council. The question of elected members as against members appointed by this hon. Minister is a matter of the utmost importance. Here we are dealing with a population group, the Indian community of South Africa, which certainly has at least the standard of civilization and the standard of responsibility of the South African Coloured community or the Coloured population. Nevertheless we find with this legislation that there is still a backlog in regard to the constitutional development of the Indians compared to that of the Coloured persons of South Africa. Why cannot this body become a full-fledged elected body? Why does this hon. Minister want to hold even further consultations now? Why does he not take an example from the Coloured Persons Council, where they are absolutely frustrated because they do not have the right to elect their own representatives, but where the majority are appointed by the Government? The Indian community has surely reached a much higher level of civilization than the Coloured community in South Africa, and the hon. the Minister is still retarding the development of these people. Are these people, in terms of the opinion of the hon. the Minister, not responsible enough? Are they not yet equal to the task? The hon. the Minister accepts only that this council may develop into a partially elected body. I want to quote the hon. the Minister’s words which he used in his Second Reading speech. He said the following—

That is quite correct.

I do not dispute the sentiments expressed by the hon. the Minister, but can the hon. the Minister tell us why this body cannot be a fully elected body? The hon. the Minister is so sensitive about the expression “Government stooges” that he referred to it in his Second Reading speech. He is also very sensitive about the words “hand-picked men”, which the hon. member for Mooi River used. After all, the Minister is the man who appoints these people, and he is the man who selects these people. If an idea along these lines were to develop among the general public and particularly the Indian community in South Africa, the hon. the Minister would have only himself to blame. He has only himself to blame, because he is not giving the Indians in South Africa the right to elect their own people. Nevertheless we can congratulate the hon. the Minister because he accepts the principle of an elected body, even if it is only in part. As the hon. member for Zululand indicated, fewer powers have been allotted to this Council than, for example, to the Coloured Persons Representative Council. There is however, one very very interesting measure contained in this Amendment Bill in respect of which the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs could perhaps take his cue from the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. This is in respect of clause 7 of this Amendment Bill …

Order! That is not under discussion now. We are dealing with this Bill and not with the Coloured people.

Mr. Speaker, I am referring to clause 7 of this amendment Bill …

Yes, I know, but the hon. member must confine his ideas to this Bill.

Clause 7 of this Bill is intended, inter alia, to amend section 10 (2) (b) of the principal Act, and I want to quote it to hon. members. Clause 7 begins with the words—

by, inter alia, I quote from section 10 (2) (b) which is amended by clause 7 (a)—

We must at least congratulate the hon. the Minister on this, because I do not think anything like this is possible in the Coloured Persons Representative Council. In the Coloured Persons Representative Council it is not possible for an elected member of the executive committee to be removed from office by a two-thirds majority of the members if they think he has not done his work thoroughly. Another matter which I should like to raise with the Minister in principle, so that we can discuss it to better advantage in the Committee Stage, relates to clause 4 of this amendment Bill. Clause 4 provides that a new section 3 be substituted for section 3 of the principal Act. I am referring specifically to the new section 3 which is being inserted by clause 4. Clause 4 provides, inter alia—

1. 3. No person shall be appointed or be capable of being elected as a member of the Council …
   1. (c) if he holds an office of profit in the service of the State.

My problem here is specifically in respect of the Indian teacher, if I may mention an example. What arrangements could be made so that a person may stand as candidate for this body if he were, for example, a teacher in the employ of the Department of Indian Affairs? For the Whites and the Coloureds specific exceptions, exemptions and concessions are made in this respect. Possibly the hon. the Minister can throw further light on this matter.

The principle contained in this South African Indian Council Amendment Bill, in the words of the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs in his Second Reading speech yesterday afternoon in this House, is the so-called orderly continuation of separate development. Sir, this is a further theoretical separation between the Whites and the Indians as far as the constitutional development of the South African set-up is concerned. This amending Bill elaborates further on the development, as I see it, of an Indian Parliament parallel to or separate from this hon. House. During the course of this debate members on the opposite side once again rejected with the greatest measure of disapproval representation of the South African Indian community in this House.

The only link between this hon. House and the South African Indian Council is the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs. Once again it is apparent that this hon. Minister, in the same way as the hon. Ministers of Coloured Affairs and of Bantu Administration and Development are doing, is trying to appropriate for himself the greatest possible measure of authority in respect of, in this case, the Indian Council, in order to ensure that the control and authority of this hon. House is exercised to the least possible extent over the South African Indian Council and that he is then able, all on his own, to hold consultations and allot to these people their rights. For that precise reason we on this side of the House want to know from the hon. the Minister what his objectives are. What are his ideas? What was his idea when he came to this House with this Bill? I am referring to clause 8 of this Bill, which amends the principal Act by the insertion of clause 10A. This deals with certain powers which may be delegated to the executive committee of the South African Indian Council. I just want to quote this—

Subsection (2) (c) of the proposed section 10A then reads—

What are these “other matters” which the hon. the Minister has in mind? Probably, when the hon. the Minister came to this House with this Bill, he perhaps had certain proclamations on his desk which he wanted to have promulgated, there must have been certain ideas milling around in his head. He must have thought that he needed this legislation because he wanted to have certain proclamations promulgated. Now the hon. the Minister must tell us what he has in mind when he speaks of “other matters”. These “other matters” can mean anything. If this Indian Council could possibly develop into an Indian Parliament, which would then be the highest authority—because hon. members on the opposite side deny the Indians representation in this House—it is the right of this House and the general public to know where this Government wants to take the Indian community of South Africa in the constitutional sphere. Will this South African Indian Council develop into a third Parliament within the geographic area of South Africa? Will there eventually be a White Parliament, the Coloured Parliament and thirdly, then, the Indian Parliament? This hon. House cannot for all time remain the supreme authority in South Africa, with the Coloured and Indian Parliaments subordinate, to it. Even if the Minister of Indian Affairs is maintaining liaison with these people, this cannot surely be the case ad infinitum. If we are going to have these three bodies in South Africa, I think that somewhere at the top there will have to be a central supreme authority, possibly a central Parliament, through which liaison between the White Parliament and the Indian and Coloured Parliaments respectively will be necessary. Hon. members on the opposite side kicked up a great fuss about why we on this side of the House criticize, yet support, this legislation. This amendment Bill is a step in the right direction as far as the approach of the United Party is concerned. While we on this side of the House determine the direction and accept the goal for which we regard this legislation as essential, hon. members on the opposite side support this legislation without knowing where this legislation is going to lead them. They simply say that this is the right step towards the implementation of separate development. What is the implementation of separate development in terms of this Amendment Bill for the South African Indian community? Does it indicate a future homeland? Does it indicate a future Indian Parliament in South Africa? Does it indicate a body for South African Indians with more rights, or at least the same rights as this hon. House? Are these parallel, equal rights? There is also doubt and speculation among some intellectuals in this regard. The hon. member for Rissik prefers to talk about intelligent people. I want to quote two people, and I hope they will conform to the intelligence Qualifications set by the hon. member for Rissik. These are people exchanging ideas on the future South African constitutional set-up. The remarks of two very well-known Nationalists in particular are interesting. I want to quote them this afternoon. The one is Mr. Dawid de Villiers. These days the National Party is no longer so fond of Mr. “Lang Dawid” de Villiers, but he is still a Nationalist, and he is still working for their Press group.

I quote from the Rand Daily Mail of 19th July, 1971:

There is another very interesting observation, made by Prof. Nick Rhoodie. The hon. the Prime Minister said the other day that he is not a leading Nationalist, but as far as I am concerned, he is still a Nationalist, unless they have kicked him out. Perhaps the hon. member for Rissik will say he is intelligent. Prof. Rhoodie said the following:

The report from which I am quoting, continues:

The report then went on to say:

Prof. Rhoodie says:

Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will reject this idea. The report continues:

This is what Prof. Rhoodie said, and the hon. member for Pretoria Central can tell us whether they still accept him as a Nationalist. The report continued:

Mr. Speaker, I want to …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now; he has quoted enough. We do not want to hear the entire speech.

Sir, I should just like to complete this quotation.

No, the hon. member has quoted enough now. He must return to the Bill.

Sir, I accept your ruling. These people are speculating over where this hon. Minister wants to go with this legislation. Why do we on this side of the House support this legislation? It is simply because the principle contained herein, as we read the legislation, fits in with our idea of an Indian Communal Council which will control, administer and govern matters affecting the Indian community personally and intimately. We foresee that the Indian community will have its say in regard to national matters within the framework of a federal, central parliament. That is why we are not objecting to the handing over of matters as summarized in this Bill, matters such as education and community welfare.

But, Sir, we do in fact object inter alia to the vagueness in regard to the allocation of other matters which are not described in this legislation, but which will be determined by the hon. the Minister and will then be allocated by way of proclamation, which will merely be proclaimed here in this House. In other words, we object to the method of liaison between this hon. House and the Indian Council, as this legislation provides. In terms of our policy the Indian Council, or as we prefer to call it, the Indian Communal Council, will have its liaison with this hon. House through, in the first place, representation of the Indian community in this House, as the highest authority in South Africa.

We accept the South Africa, Indian community as permanent. We do not regard them merely as having been permanent since 1961; we accept them as having been permanent since these people set foot on our shores, in the same way as anyone else. In the second place the liaison between this hon. House and the Indian Communal Council will take place by means of standing statutory committees.

We support this amendment Bill because it supports our policies and our trend of thought. I am referring to this matter in principle now. It prepares the way, so that when we take over the government of South Africa we will be able to apply our policy more rapidly. Hon. members on this side, particularly the hon. member for Zululand, have already indicated which matters we shall take further during the Committee Stage. We shall then thrash out those matters with the hon. the Minister.

I want to conclude by saying that we on this side of the House know why we are supporting this legislation, for, as we see it, we have an aim with this legislation. It is an aim in the direction in which the United Party is going. Hon. members on the opposite side are supporting this measure, and when they have to tell us where it is going, then the hon. member for Rissik says that that is a hypothetical question. While hon. members on the opposite side are supporting this legislation for obscure reasons, and because they do not know where this legislation is going, we are fortunate in being able to say that we can use this legislation in the direction which the United Party wishes to take. More than one supreme authority, more than one parliament in South Africa, is an absolute absurdity, if it is not a reason …

Order! We have heard that point so frequently; we do not want to hear it again.

Sir, then I want to conolude by saying that we accept this legislation in principle …

Yes, but the hon. member has said that frequently too.

There are matters which we shall take further in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to the speech of the hon. the Minister yesterday afternoon and to correct an inaccuracy—I believe it to have been an inadvertent inaccuracy—on his part when he said this—

I would like to refer the hon. gentleman to a speech made in the Other Place on the 7th February, 1961 (Col. 528) by Senator Friend. He said this—

Apparently this statement was made the previous year 1960 when Sir De Villiers was overseas, so this was before 1961. This is what Sir De Villiers said, as quoted by Senator Friend—

Sir, this just goes to show that what the United Party propounds, the National Pary takes over or imitates, usually slowly and usually only in part, but inevitably, just as inevitably as we will take over the Government of South Africa sooner than hon. members opposite think.

I had hoped to make reference to a statement made by the hon. member for Houghton, but I see that she is out of the Chamber again, so I will merely refer to the fact that she indicated that her policy was a common roll franchise. I would like to draw her attention to the fact, and say for the sake of the record, that when the Molteno Commission, hand-picked by the Progressive Party, asked Dr. Cooppan, the only Indian to serve on the committee, he expressed substantial disagreement with the high franchise qualifications it laid down. I believe that the hon. member for Houghton should remember this and tell people that she cannot claim the support of the Indian community as far as the franchise is concerned.

The changed attitude of the Government toward the Indian community was announced originally, I believe, in the policy statement by Minister Maree in 1962. He indicated that it was a radical departure from traditional policy, and he made it plain that the Indian community should be guided towards achieving a measure of self-government. He said quite clearly that it should be more or less on the same pattern as that of the Coloureds, but he continually stressed consultation with the Indians. He then went on to say that the Government’s declared policy was that a governing body, parliamentary in character, with legislative and administrative powers, should be created for matters affecting the Indians. This was in 1962, and then in 1963 Minister Maree went on record as saying—

Well, Sir, this is nine years later and I think it is fitting just to review briefly what has taken place. We have before us here a vague Bill which in clause 2 provides that an unspecified number of Indians will be elected to a slightly enlarged council. We find in clause 4 that a nucleus of educated, informed opinion, such as members of the teaching profession, will be excluded from election or appointment to this council. We have no indication whatsoever when this is likely to come about, because it will be done by proclamation, and we have no indication to what extent the elected members will form the basis of the council. I want to refer to the fact that Mr. A. M. Rajab, the chairman of the executive committee, is on record as having indicated that he has always striven to see this council a fully elected council. When Mr. Rajab came to deal with the activities of the council, prior to the coming into being of the second statutory council, he said this—

Then he went on to say—

Mr. Rajab indicates quite clearly that the administrative arrangements are fairly far advanced, so it would seem that there should be no administrative difficulty now in making arrangements for a council composed largely of elected members. I ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is for the delay, when the Indians themselves are anxious to have this council and when the groundwork seems to have been completed or almost completed.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that time is not on the Government’s side; time is on the side of the Opposition, because the Opposition is prepared to go forward and to make progress in this matter, but the Minister and the Cabinet are dragging their feet over this matter. I am beginning to wonder whether the Government is not afraid of its own frequently announced policy in regard to the Indians and the other races in South Africa, because 10 years have elapsed since this statement on fundamental policy change, took place, and I believe that the progress in this particular Bill is too slow and too vague. I believe that this is a snail-pace evolution for what Mr. Maree described as a governing body, parliamentary in character, and with legislative and administrative powers.

In the meantime the Indian community themselves have not been standing still. They have made remarkable progress in many aspects and in the part they play in the community. In 1961, for example, there were 181 industrial projects managed by Indians, employing approximately 4 600 Indians, and in 1969 this number of industrial projects had grown to 620 and no fewer than 12 000 Indians were being employed.

A good Government.

Here we have a growth of responsible industrialists who still find themselves in the position that they are not considered competent to elect their own governing body. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Where is the Indian Development Corporation? Has it been called into being yet? This was one of the first topics discussed by the original council, the members of whom were nominated by this Minister in 1964. This recommendation has been endorsed by subsequent councils. I ask the Minister: Where is the Indian Development Corporation? We have a Bantu Development Corporation and we have a Coloured Development Corporation, but for this most advanced section we do not have a development corporation to assist them in their endeavours.

Then, Sir, I think it is fitting to review briefly some of the activities and possibly some of the successes which have been achieved by the three councils which have already served the Indian people, the first of which was set up in 1964. After the council had been operating for a few years, we find that 12 recommendations were submitted to the Minister, one on job reservation, among other things. In one of these initial recommendations, after the council had deliberated for a few years, we find a request for the establishment of faculties of medicine and engineering at the University College for Indians, as it was then, and we find that only now there is a committee investigating this proposition after years of representations from the Indians themselves. Then let me take the Indian Council which had its term of office from 1968 to 1971. We find in answer to a question which I put to the Minister that 12 submissions were made to the Minister as the result of the deliberations of that council. Of those 12, three were received favourably, two were rejected and six were pending at that stage. One of the matters pending was an appeal to the Minister for some sort of arrangement whereby Indians could employ Bantu domestic servants. This appeal has been reiterated by a subsequent council, but as far as I know the matter is still pending. This is not progress; this is almost stagnation, Sir. Then we have the question of the payment of the rate for the job. The Indian professionals want to see the gap narrowed as far as their professional salaries are concerned. What can the Minister tell us about progress in this regard? It is still pending—a matter which affects the Indian community deeply and which I believe is causing South Africa to lose highly trained people, people who could be an asset to the country, to other countries where a more enlightened attitude is taken with regard to payment for professional services.

I referred to the manner in which the Indians themselves have taken over responsibility and have advanced. The report of the Department of Indian Affairs confirms this because it indicates that in 1961 27 per cent of the posts in the Department of Indian Affairs were occupied by Indians and by 1970 the percentage had grown to over 75 per cent. Surely the department would not employ these people if they were not satisfied with the services they rendered. Yet we see this picture which was painted in 1962 of an Indian council with elected members developing so slowly, too slowly.

Now I want to refer to clause 2 of the Bill because it gives no clear promise of meaningful progress. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have heard from him and from members on that side of the House how satisfied the Indian community has been with this particular council. That may be so, but there are certain sections of the Indian community who feel differently. They point out—and I will not go into detail about this because the point has been made frequently—that they are not on a par with the Coloured Representative Council, which has its elected members. They say, with every justification, that they are the most sophisticated non-White race in South Africa that educationally, commercially and in the professional field, they are more highly advanced and qualified than the other non-White races, and yet they are making the slowest progress towards self-determination in terms of the Government’s own policy. They also say, and perhaps the Minister can endorse this for me, that the Council and executive members of the Indian Council are the lowest paid council members of all council members.

Tell me, has this anything to do with the Bill before us? I can well understand it being raised under my Vote.

As far as I am concerned it has, because as far as I remember, the original Bill laid down conditions under which they should be paid. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to give the hon. the Minister some expression of opinion from someone who does not feel as he does in regard to the council. I believe he must be objective about this; there are always two sides to a question. Cannot the other side be put? This is what Dr. Fatima Meer has to say—

That is a negative approach, just like yours.

Other members who criticize the achievements of this council, point out that the progress which has been made—and I will come to that aspect later —has not relieved the discomfort and the suffering of the Indian traders. They point out that many of the Indians who have suffered under group areas legislation, have had the raw end of the deal. But I want to talk about one of the advantages which I believe is a tangible advantage and one which I think we must accept with satisfaction, and that is in regard to education.

As far as education is concerned, I believe that the Indians have been very generously treated, more generously in certain respects than the Bantu and the Coloureds. Mr. Rajab himself said that he believed that shortly compulsory education could be introduced and also that they expected to do away with double sessions. This in itself is an achievement of which I believe the Minister can be proud.

I want to come back to two minor aspects of the Bill itself. Clause 6 (f), the vacation of office, says that a member of the council shall vacate his office under certain circumstances and that the Minister lays down the grounds for it. I want to ask the Minister whether he will give further consideration to this. I believe that these provisions are not entirely satisfactory and consequently it is our intention to consider moving an amendment which we believe will make the position more satisfactory. I trust that if we see our way clear towards doing this, the Minister will treat our recommendation sympathetically.

Then in regard to the executive functions, we have a position which I believe to be completely illogical. We have in clause 8 the provision that education and community welfare will be handed over to this council. But what about health? Only this week in this Parliament we agreed to hand over to the Transkeian Government the responsibility in regard to the administration of health, and everybody who heard that debate will remember that the personnel is sadly lacking there. Among the Indians we probably have the highest proportion of qualified medical men—specialists and others, who all make up the health team— and yet we find that with this nucleus of qualified people, who are supposed to serve their own people in terms of the Government’s own policy, the Council will not be called upon to take part in the administration of health services for the Indians.

Finally, let me say that we have indicated our support for this Bill. We have indicated too what little progress has been made and we trust that the desires of the Indians for a fully elected council will not be much longer delayed, but that the Minister will give urgent consideration through the powers he is asking for in this Bill, to effect this change by regulation.

Mr. Speaker, in the first instance I would like to apologize to you and to the House for my absence from the House when this Bill came forward. Perhaps I was misled because I have always listened to the United Party supporting a measure and then saying that they will have certain criticisms to offer in the Committee Stage. Unfortunately in the case of the Bills that preceded mine, this did not take place, but here in my case, as you see, Sir, they are supporting the Bill but yet they have taken up quite a few hours of debate in criticizing it. But I apologize to you, Sir, for my absence, as well as to hon. members.

What I would like to say on this very point is that the Opposition supports the Bill, … but … Now I quite understand that and I appreciate that criticism can be offered at all times, and the fact that you support a measure does not mean that you do not have certain comments to pass. But I would like to say this to my friend, the hon. member for Mooi River. He also said “I support the Bill, but”, and then he proceeded to harangue this side of the House for supporting this Bill which was a cloak and dagger measure, and he said he could not understand how we could support this Bill. I thought that was the choicest remark of the debate, that this hon. member stood up and said that the United Party supports the Bill and then tries to pick us out on this side of the House because we support the Bill. I must say I think that should go down as an epic standpoint in this House.

I felt I would like to tackle the first speaker and the theme that other speakers followed in their criticisms. That was the general statement that there is a vagueness about the Bill, that I do not convey to the House my plans with or views on the Indian question, nor the plans I have for the future of the Indian Council. This theme was followed by every hon. member on that side of the House. My view has always been—I want to repeat this for the benefit of the hon. member for Zululand because I said it when my Vote was under discussion—that I prefer to consult with the Indian Council, because there I do not find the political exploitation which I get from the Opposition of any measure that is brought into the House and in my case particularly on Indian affairs. I discuss matters with them fully and that is why in this Bill I say specifically “after consultation with the Indian Council”. I stated this specifically in the Bill, because this is the method which this Government is going to adopt in handling matters of this sort.

I want to say to the hon. members—I listened to the hon. member for Turffontein particularly—I know why they are asking all these questions. Only for one purpose: Not to benefit the Indian community, not to try to solve problems which may occur in a country like this, but only for the purpose of party political exploitation and I am not prepared to play that game with hon. members opposite and they better know it.

How can you say that? It is an unworthy remark.

Look to what extent the hon. members go. They say in their criticism: “We believe that the Council should be fully elected; that there should not be such a thing as nominated or appointed members of the Council”. I want to ask them whether they, the United Party, control the Provincial Council in Natal; whether they control the local authorities in Natal? I want to read an ordinance which was published by the Provincial Council of Natal in 1963, the Local Government Extension Ordinance, 1963. This Ordinance has never been changed.

What about Verulam?

No, the hon. member should not try to get away from this. This is what the Ordinance provides—

Hear, hear!

I was waiting for that. I read on—

Look at all the atmosphere that was created here: “We, the United Party, only believe in fully elected bodies”. However, they themselves have bodies operating at the present moment under their jurisdiction, bodies over which they have control and yet they appoint members to those bodies.

What about Verulam? [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Zululand wants to get away from the general statements which were made here. These are the issues we are discussing. Listen to the hon. member for Durban Berea. He said that my statement about 1961 was a fallacious statement, the statement that from that date only have the Indians been recognized as a permanent section of the population. I immediately asked for a full reply to this question. I knew what it was, but I wanted to give it to him in writing, so that he could hear what the actual position was. Let me read it. “All Governments since Union, 1910, upheld the policy of repatriation.” That went for the old S.A.P. Government and also for the United Party Government. “This policy was finally discarded by the National Party when it was announced in the Senate by the then Minister of the Interior, Senator de Klerk, that the policy had failed and that the Indians were here to stay. They were therefore offered similar development opportunities to the Coloureds, and they were accepted as part of the permanent population of the Republic.” That is what I was conveying, and it was not fallacious.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Are you prepared to concede that Sir De Villiers Graaff made this speech before that? This is my point.

The hon. member said that the statement I made was fallacious and here I have the actual position stated in writing. It is factual and I will give it to the hon. member. It is the constitutional background of the indian population in this country. The hon. member for Berea also talked about how we had gone backwards in our treatment of the Indians.

Not backwards, but so slowly forward.

I want to ask the hon. member if he is proud of the fact that the United Party in 1946 was prepared to have three White representatives for the Indians in Parliament, and that in 1971 they were only prepared to have two? The United Party is always so honest and wonderful in their treatment of the Indians. I want to ask the hon. member another question. The hon. member talked about the development of the Indians and, to use his words and those of other hon. members on that side of the House, how the Indians were basically superior to other non-White groups.

I am afraid you will have to table that question.

What question? I can see they are getting a bit nervous now. I want to ask those lily-white members on the other side: If they feel that Coloureds can have Coloured representatives in Parliament, and that if the Indians are superior in so many ways, why then do they insist that only White persons can represent the Indians in this Parliament? There is so much sham and bluff about all this. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Port Natal and I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I hope she appreciates the fact that a little lovers’ quarrel is going on. We on this side of the House all know that the hon. member for Port Natal has been her bench mate, or shall I say at a bench very near to hers, and we also know that his policies are directly connected with hers. It is well known. The hon. member for Port Natal is very disappointed that the hon. member for Houghton has let him down. In fact, he would rather be voting against the Bill with her, but he was forced to vote in favour of the Bill by the United Party caucus. That is the whole story. The hon. member for Houghton must therefore not take offence, and I hope they both make it up again very shortly.

Perhaps I should go back to the actual speeches and the questions put to me by hon. members, and I want to start off with the hon. member for Zululand. I think I have answered the general points. The hon. member may not be satisfied, but that is my view of the situation and that is the policy I shall adopt when handling matters of this sort. I shall regard my consultation with the Indian Council as a better method than the party political exploitation that I get from the Opposition. That is how I feel about this matter.

The hon. member for Zululand firstly made a big issue of the proposed insertion of section 1A. He said that it is not laid down that the proclamation referred to in the proposed section 1A will be tabled in this House. He said that that means that the matters referred to in section 1A can presumably be discussed only under my Vote Of course, that is not so. I want to tell the hon. member—and this will answer the hon. member for Rissik—that at the time I was also determined that this should be done after consultation with the Indian Council. My attitude was that that should be put in the Bill. I am not a legal man by any menas. Then the legal situation was submitted to me by the legal advisers. Perhaps the hon. member for Zululand may appreciate it better than I do. The situation was put to me as follows:

It is automatic. They went on to say:

It has to be tabled. Section 1A differs from section 8 in which “proclamation” is specified. I think the actual statement by the law advisers was that these proclamations will have to be tabled because actual rules and regulations are dealt with here. I have the whole statement on the position by the law advisers.

Tell us about the proclamations.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must not run away. He accused me of avoiding discussion in this House on this particular point. Now when I put the position to him and he realizes that he was wrong, he flees away to something else. I am not prepared to say any more than is in this Bill. The hon. member must understand that as far as I am concerned I am answering that question that he put to me with regard to the fact that the proclamation would not be tabled.

Alright, I am wrong. Now tell us about the proclamation.

I am having my own debate and I shall say what I want to say. Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that the hon. member has now found that he is not as right as he thought he was. He realizes that the accusation he made against the Government and me, namely that we were not prepared to table that proclamation, is incorrect.

Well, few of us are perfect.

It is just as well that the hon. member realizes that, because he gives us the impression that he thinks he is perfect.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to refer to a few of the other points which the hon. member also referred to in his speech and to the questions he put to me. He referred to the new section 6 (f) proposed in clause 6 of this Bill. I think the hon. member for Berea also referred to it. I can tell the hon. members of the experience that the Indian Council and I had with regard to section 6 (f). The late Mr. Moola was a member of the Indian Council. He had a stroke and was completely paralyzed and speechless. He could not in any way perform any task whatsoever. There was no machinery or regulation by means of which he could be excluded from the Council and somebody put in his place. It was because of that that the Indian Council asked me to bring in this particular section.

One medical practitioner?

Yes, a medical practitioner. The Bill says “a medical practitioner”. The point is that the ulterior motives that the hon. member sees in this, do not even exist. Every one of these matters are handled in conjunction with and after consultation with the Indian Council. That is why I say to hon. members that I appreciated it when the hon. member said “two medical opinions”. If I were really mala fides in the matter, even two medical practitioners would not assist. This is done with the idea that the man’s family medical officer will give a certificate to that effect. In this instance the late Mr. Moola’s medical practitioner was prepared to give a certificate, but there was no provision in terms of which I could act.

Could Mr. Moola not resign?

He was not able to write. He was not able to make any contact with those around him. There is no provision in law which would regard Mr. Moola under those circumstances as being fit to give an opinion. He was completely paralysed in speech. That was the situation we were faced with and that was the situation the Indian Council was faced with. [Interjections.] The hon. members must understand the conditions. The man died eventually. Hon. members know that there are many cases where the same thing happened elsewhere. What I have said is all that is intended by that particular clause.

With regard to the new section 6 (h), which is inserted, and which reads—

I want to give hon. members the background. Let us say Mr. X is the treasurer of a welfare organization and he is a member of the Council. He is found guilty by the court of misappropriation of the funds of that society, but he is only fined. If he is not removed from that office of trust by his society, he would be immune from removal from office as a member of the Council, notwithstanding the fact that the ad hoc committee of the Indian Council had found that he was not a fit person to remain a member of the Council. That is the only reason why that power is required. It is there to assist the Indian Council in getting a person in whom they have confidence instead of the one who is guilty of misconduct. That is the only reason.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I accept what the hon. the Minister says in this respect, but I would like to remind him of what I said in my speech about things not being stated clearly enough as a reason to remove any member.

Order !

All I would say is that much legislation has been passed in this House, the basis of which was bona fides in every way. The reasons cannot be described in the legislation. This is the situation that we are facing, and that is why I made it clear in my Second Reading speech that this Bill had been submitted to the Indian Council. It has been submitted to them and it has been fully discussed with them. The Indian Council approved of the Bill. I hope hon. members are not going to create an atmosphere between the Government or the Minister and the Indian Council. Whatever hon. members say, and I would like to thank the hon. member for Houghton for what she has said, the progress of the Indians in South Africa has been remarkable during the last 10 years. Although the hon. member for Berea may say that we are dragging our feet, I want to say to him that 10 years in the history of a country and 10 years in the development of a people is a very short time indeed. I say: Allow this basis of consultation with the Indian Council and their development to move along steadily. To the hon. member for Berea, who also quoted the case of Mrs. Fatima Meer, I want to say that she and the hon. member for Houghton think entirely alike. For them it is all or nothing. They want everything or nothing whatsoever. They want the lot and they do not want any basis of consultation or any basis on which the communities can work together for the benefit of everyone. That is why when the hon. member quoted this, I was surprised. The hon. member for Mooi River also quoted a spokesman of the Indian Congress who is completely inimical to a basis of working with the White population other than all or nothing. That is why I say that on that basis of full integration this Government, this Party, and I myself are not prepared to concede to the demands. I think that is why the hon. member sits alone in this House. The majority of the White people in South Africa are not prepared to accept that sort of dictation from the Indian population.

I won’t be here alone for long.

The hon. member for Houghton made a trip to Zambia, and she came back full of praise for Dr. Kaunda. I want to know what he has done for the Indian people of Zambia. I know the position, because the Indians talk to me. It shows you how wrong the hon. member is in her judgments and how wrong she can be in her attitude.

It is completely irrelevant.

What is completely irrelevant?

Your statement.

No, the point is that the hon. member may be liberal in mind, but when one catches her out, she is not liberal at all. She does not want to hear anything one has to say. That is the position. We will continue handling the problems of South Africa without the assistance and advice of the hon. member for Houghton.

You are doing very badly.

The hon. member says we are doing very badly. I want to see the hon. member’s party grow, because at the present moment she is the only one who represents them in this House.

The other point the hon. member for Zululand referred to was the fact that they wanted a fully elected Council and that they considered it anathema that one should not have a fully elected council. Now that I have pointed out to them what in actual fact is taking place in Natal with the provincial Ordinance, perhaps they will change their mind also on this particular point.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? What is the position in Verulam? Do they have an elected town council?

There I can point out to the hon. member for Houghton that her facts were completely wrong. She said Verulam’s council was the only council that existed as an Indian council.

No, I said “the only fully elected council”.

No, the council of Isipingo is fully elected. There are a number of local councils that are also operating on this principle. The hon. member said that Verulam was the only one …

[Inaudible.]

Well, it seems that the hon. member is not as accurate as she thinks she is.

The hon. member also considered that matters concerning finance and local government should also have been specifically assigned to the Executive Committee of the Council. This matter was also raised by the hon. member for Houghton and other members. This clause deals with the delegation of powers and executive functions. It makes specific mention of education and community welfare, as well as other matters which the State President can assign to them by proclamation.

Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know exactly what matters were going to be handed over to the Indian Council. Time will tell what matters will be handed over to them. Obviously that is why this clause was inserted in the Bill. It specifically mentions education and social welfare. I think it is unreasonable for the hon. member to offer that criticism. Other matters which the Government may decide to hand over to the Indian Council will be handed over to them after consultation with them.

May I ask the hon. the Minister where the finance is to come from for the handling of these portfolios of education and social welfare? I see no provision in the Bill for money to be voted to the council.

The money is voted by this Parliament to the Department of Indian Affairs, and the Secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs will remain the accounting officer for moneys handed over to the council. The position is quite clear in that regard. This Parliament votes the money, nobody else.

But not directly to the council?

No, to the Department of Indian Affairs. This department will control the financial arrangements between this council and the Government. Sir, I do not know whether I have failed to reply to any points raised by the hon. member with regard to the details of the Bill. If so, I will be very happy to deal with them if he will draw my attention to them.

The hon. member for Mooi River referred to hand-picked members. Before he used the term “hand-picked”, I asked him to be careful.

No, after I had said it.

Well, I meant to say it before, because I was anticipating what the hon. member was going to say. The hon. member knows why I said this, because last year he referred to the members of the Indian Council as “stooges”.

Not I.

Oh yes, the hon. member did, and he was hauled over the coals about it. That is why I told him to be careful. I did not want the hon. member to get into trouble again; I was trying to protect him from his foolishness. I think I was wrong when I said that he was a friend of the Indian Congress. I quite appreciate that that was wrong, but I do want to say to him that he should not quote Indian Congress men and then say that that is the opinion of the moderate Indians.

I did not say that.

I have the hon. member’s Hansard here. He referred to “moderate opinion”.

Will you study my speech, because I did not say that?

I think the hon. member could also study it. I am quite prepared to allow the hon. member to change it.

His name is not Albert Hertzog.

Sir, that is exactly what happened. He talked about the moderate point of view and then quoted a statement made by one of the Indian Congress leaders.

As a contrast.

As a contrast.

Sir. I can quite understand why the hon. member for Houghton calls this a pale measure. I think she referred to it as a “no-Bill”. She suggests that the only thing that means anything to the Indian people is meaningful political rights. But then, of course her view is quite different from mine. I consider that there are many other important matters affecting the Indians which need attention. These so-called “political rights” which the hon. member wants for the Indians will break down, in my opinion, and create a backlash in South Africa which will not be in the interests of the Indian community. That is why we differ, and that is why this Government will carry on as it has done in the past.

Sir, I cannot understand how the hon. member for Port Natal can support this Bill in view of the sentiments which he expressed in this House. He says that the Indian has been treated shamefully. He did not even give the Government or the department credit for having improved education for the Indians.

It has improved.

Yes, but the hon. member did not give the department credit for it, and yet the hon. member for Houghton did. The hon. member makes no reference to the fact that a university for Indians will be opened at Westville, a university which will be a model university. I doubt if there is anything better in any part of the world.

It is the only thing.

Now he says that this is the only thing; in every other respect the Indians have been treated shamefully, according to him. The hon. member should go and join the hon. member for Houghton and vote with her. He should not talk against her because he is upset because of the mood in which he spoke.

Just deal with the points I raised.

Sir, I say to the United Party, as I have said to them on many occasions—and I do not say it with any malice—that they will not appeal to the country when they have members like the hon. member for Port Natal sitting in their midst, just as they used to have the hon. member for Houghton sitting in their midst. They can never appeal to the country because the country will have no confidence in them.

The hon. member for Turffontein also talked about teachers being precluded from serving on the council. Let me read out the note which I have from the Secretary of the department : “Teachers are precluded by regulation from criticizing the department on a public platform, and it would be detrimental to discipline to allow them to stand for election. It is also in the interests of the Indian community that the members of the council should be able to speak freely and express criticism of the department where necessary.” If I am not mistaken, I think the Indian Council itself suggested that this provision should be incorporated in the Bill, or they at least approved of the incorporation of this provision in the Bill. That is because they themselves want freedom to offer criticism, and they do not want a situation to arise where disciplinary action hes to be taken against a teacher member. The fact that we refer in the Bill to other matters which may be handed over to the Council also worries the hon. member. I have explained that the Government will decide from time to time what other matters can be handed over to the council. Sir, I think that that covers the points raised in this debate. Other matters of detail which may be raised in the Committee Stage can be dealt with at that stage.

Motion put and a division demanded.

Fewer than four members (viz. Mrs. H. Suzman) having supported the demand for a division, motion declared agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

These few clauses of the Bill to amend the National Institute for Metallurgy Act, 1965, are consequent upon recommendations made by the board of control of the Institute. The amendments contemplated, are not of a drastic nature, and some of the more important changes we want to effect, will in fact merely bring the Act into line with the statutory provisions already applicable to the C.S.I.R.

Before saying a few things about the Bill, I just want to mention that the National Institute for Metallurgy has for a long time been doing extremely important work for our country, without any fuss and with very little publicity, and that the elimination of a number of deficiencies in the Act applicable in respect of the Institute, should be seen as only one of the various steps required for enabling the Institute to play the increasingly more important role it will have to play in the exploitation of our mineral wealth. For some time now we have been giving attention to steps for developing the institute into a research institute of world standing, because the increased processing of our minerals is of cardinal importance to the national economy. I have no doubt that in years to come hon. members are still going to hear a great deal about the achievements of the Institute.

In coming back to the Bill, I want to say that there is no need for me to pause at the first two clauses. All that is being done here, is to add another definition for the sake of convenience, and furthermore, whereas amendments are now being effected to the Act, we are taking this opportunity to change the designation of the chief executive officer of the Institute to that of director-general, which is in line with the practice followed at other research institutes in countries abroad and in South Africa.

Clause 3 of the Bill only seeks to effect a minor amendment to section 8 (1) of the Act, which provides what moneys the funds of the Institute shall consist of. As a new section 11A is being added by clause 6, in terms of which it will be possible for the Institute to enter into agreements in order to have discoveries, etc., developed or exploited, and as financial benefits may accrue to the Institute from such agreements, it is necessary to supplement section 8 (1) of the Act by also referring to moneys which may be paid to the Institute by virtue of such agreements. At the same time a deficiency is supplied by also referring now to moneys which may be paid to the Institute by virtue of an agreement entered into in terms of the existing section 11 of the Act. Under the latter section the Institute may enter into agreements in order to carry out special investigations or to have them carried out for the purpose of making a discovery, invention or improvement in regard to any matter coming within the scope of the Institute, and although this will not be a frequent occurrence, the possibility must be foreseen that revenue may accrue to the Institute from such agreements as well.

As far as clause 4 is concerned, it is being provided that the rights in inventions, etc., made by an officer or employee of the Institute, shall under certain circumstances vest in that officer or employee— and not in the Institute—for instance, if it is clear that the invention, etc., was made otherwise than in the course of his employment at the Institute and is not connected with his employment. Provisions of this nature are not foreign to research institutes and it is unnecessary to dilate on the matter, since amending provisions similar to those contemplated in clause 4, were incorporated in the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, as far back as 1964. Just as it is in the case of the C.S.I.R., the decision as to whether any discovery, etc., was made by an employee in the circumstances foreseen in the clause, shall vest in the Minister, and I suppose I need hardly say that action will only be taken with due regard to the recommendations made by the board of control of the Institute.

And now to come to clause 5. In connection with clause 3 I have already said that section 11 of the Act authorizes the Institute to enter into agreements with other persons or bodies in order to carry out special investigations or to have them carried out for the purpose of making a discovery, invention or improvement. As the section reads at present, the rights in a discovery, invention or improvement so made, shall vest in either the Institute or in the other person or body, depending on what was stipulated in the agreement. If the discovery, etc., vests in the Institute, it may make it available for use in the public interest and it has to apply by itself for the necessary patent. However, if those rights vest in the other person or body, that person or body has to use the discovery, etc., in the public interest or make it available for such use subject to such conditions as may be provided by the agreement, and he, in turn, has to arrange for the necessary patent rights.

This state of affairs causes practical problems in cases where the Institute and a private body finds it necessary to undertake such special investigations on a basis of collaboration, and for that reason clause 5 seeks to extend the provisions of section 11 to a certain extent so that in such cases it may be possible in law for rights in the discovery, invention or improvement concerned to belong jointly to the Institute and the other person or body in order that they may—if such agreement has been reached—jointly apply for the necessary patent.

In regard to the penultimate clause of the Bill—clause 6—I should just like to explain that any discovery or invention which may be made by the Institute in the course of its research projects, may sometimes be of such a nature that for practical or other reasons it would be better to have that discovery or invention developed or exploited by the South African Inventions Development Corporation, which was established by legislation in 1962, or any other statutory body specially geared for undertaking such tasks.

As hon. members know, the Institute is, just like the C.S.I.R., more specifically geared for research, and that is why section 13 of the Scientific Research Council Act, 1962, already contains provisions in terms of which the C.S.I.R. may request the Inventions Development Corporation to develop or exploit a discovery, invention or improvement in terms of the provisions of the Act under which the Development Corporation was established, subsequent to which the rights in and any patent in respect of the discovery, etc., in question are deemed to have been ceded to the Development Corporation. Unfortunately similar provisions were at the time not incorporated in the National Institute for Metallurgy Act of 1965 as well, and clause 6 merely seeks to supply the existing deficiency in order that the Institute may, when necessary, take steps similar to those taken by the C.S.I.R. by entrusting a particular discovery, invention or improvement made by the Institute to the South African Inventions Development Corporation or any other competent statutory body for the development or exploitation thereof.

As far as clause 7 of the Bill is concerned, I just want to point out that in terms of the existing section 14 of the Act, the provisions thereof are already applicable in South-West Africa. However, the wording used at the time was not correct, since it referred separately to the Rehoboth Gebiet, which actually forms part of South-West Africa. All we are doing now, is to substitute, in the interests of uniformity, the existing section by a new section, in which the more correct and shorter wording is used which is followed nowadays when we make some of our legislation applicable in respect of South-West Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough to indicate that the few amendments we wish to effect, are by no means of a drastic nature, but merely seek to eliminate a number of deficiencies in order that the Institute may carry out its important task properly.

We on this side of the House support the Second Reading of this Bill. I want to join with the hon. the Minister in paying tribute to the excellent work that has been done in the past by the National Institute for Metallurgy. We trust that their future progress will be even greater than that of their very successful past. This institute is world-renowned, and I am sure many will join with me in this. The metallurgical discoveries in South Africa up to now have only scratched the very surface of our country and the future holds high hopes for us in the world of mining. It is here that this institute will play its great part. We are fortunate in having some very excellent people associated with this institute and they deserve all the praise that has been coming to them from many parts of the world.

Having said that, I feel that it is a pity that we have to come to Parliament and bring in a Bill virtually only to change the name of an official who is working for the Institute. There should be a shorter cut to this sort of thing. This is not the first time it has happened. We have had to do it previously, in order to change the names of a director to a director-general and an assistant director to an assistant director-general. Surely we do not have to come to Parliament and pass Bills to do this sort of thing. I think the Minister must give this some thought and see whether he cannot do it by agreement or by regulation or by any other way except by coming to this House. Let me just say that it seems that there will be more and more demands from directors to become generals! In many organizations we are going to find that people who are called directors are now going to be called directors-general and their assistants will become assistant directors-general. Surely it is not necessary to pass a Bill to do this. I know how important these people are and how important they consider their office, but to me a rose by any name smells as sweet. I think I said that once before in this House when we changed the names of the directors of the Atomic Energy Board.

What is in a name?

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we have some very, very brilliant men working in the institute as we also have them in the CSIR and the Atomic Energy Board. These are people who make discoveries and are working on a salary basis, but I feel that they are entitled to some sort of bonus and appreciation for the discoveries that they make. It is difficult to achieve this but I feel that the hon. the Minister would perhaps agree with me that we should make provision for these people to share in the large sums of money that can be made out of some of their discoveries, inventions and the patents which are registered as a result of those discoveries and which are utilized by the institute or other organizations. I feel that in some material way, the people who have done the work, should be rewarded.

Otherwise I have no fight with the clauses of this Bill. I think it is necessary that we should discuss these matters in the House from time to time. I do not think that these amendments which we are bringing in today will need any close study nor will it need amending again in the near future. I really mean what I have said to the hon. the Minister, namely that we should simplify the process of naming the designation or office and that it must be remembered as well, that these people who deserve this designation should enjoy the fruits of their discoveries.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Rosettenville in regard to what has been achieved in the research work carried out by the Institute. It is, of course, true that our research institutes in South Africa have taken up a prestige position, not only in Africa, but also in the rest of the world. I am thinking, for instance, of the work done since the beginning of this century in regard to veterinary research, which was initiated by Sir Arnold Theiler at Onderstepoort. At present we find that there are other institutions carrying out similar research work, at which the world must necessarily look today. We sincerely hope that the Institute for Metallurgy, too, will be a beacon of light on the continent of Africa and for the rest of the world.

I want to make a few general observations. In the first place, I want to say that throughout the world ores are declining in grade and quality, and we must accept that extraction metallurgy will become increasingly more important. Coupled with this there is, of course, the economy of processing techniques which will have to be used in such beneficiating processes. Of course, these economic aspects are extremely important since the economy is something which changes from time to time. These factors remain of the greatest importance and may be the nucleus of the successes or failures of any extraction method. Of course, the application of an invention made through research in regard to a beneficiating process which has a bearing on a certain element, may also be valuable in the application thereof to something else. As a very result of the increasing need for metal elements, the beneficiating processes of ores have today become an important facet of any national economy throughout the world. In this regard I should like to refer to the comments made by the hon. the Minister when he stressed the importance of the Institute for Metallurgy in so far as it was doing very important work for the national economy in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to both members, the hon. member for Rosettenville and the hon. member for Etosha, for the words of praise and appreciation to the staff of the National Institute for Metallurgy. I think it is not only proper but also very well-deserved. I am quite sure that the board, the Director-General, Dr. Robinson, and his staff will certainly appreciate what has been said here. I may inform hon. members that a start has been made with the new building on a new site at Randburg for the National Institute for Metallurgy. This building will only be completed in a few years’ time, but a start has been made with the building of it. I can not agree more with both hon. members in regard to the important role this institute has to play in a country such as ours where we are blessed with such vast mineral deposits of such variety. The hon. member for Rosettenville made the point that the name of the official, or the title of the official, ought not to be in the Bill and that it should perhaps be indicated by regulation. I think we should keep that in mind for future Bills. I want to say, however, that in this particular case the guilt is on his side. He was in the House in 1956 when the Act was introduced but I was not. I do, however, admit that there is truth in what he says and that in many Bills the name or title of officials could be indicated by way of regulation. The hon. member also mentioned the matter of financial gain or material reward for a scientist or individual who has made a certain discovery. This is a very difficult matter and has many aspects about which we will have to be very careful. I may point out to the hon. member that there are other ways of honouring such an esteemed scientist. It could be done by the State President himself or by way of such funds as the Verwoerd Funds which has materially recognized the work done by some of our scientists. I think I have now replied to all the points raised by hon. members and I want to thank members once again for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is designed to effect certain amendments to the Act which experience in the administration thereof has shown to be necessary in order to clarify certain of the provisions and to remedy certain omissions.

Firstly, the object of clause 1 is to clarify the intention of the provisions of section 2 of the Act which deals with the donation of human bodies or human tissue for therapeutic or scientific purposes, by making specific provision for bodies to be donated for the purpose of post-mortem examination thereof and not merely for the purpose of removing tissues therefrom. It is an addition to post-mortem examinations.

Secondly, the intention of the clause is to provide that a legal guardian may make donations or give consent for the purposes contemplated in section 2 of the Act. At present this may only be done by a first degree relative of the deceased, such as, for example, the spouse, or a major child or parent. The inclusion of a legal guardian as proposed, is for obvious reasons logical.

Thirdly, clause 1 clarifies the position of a district surgeon who in an emergency is required to arrange for tissue to be made available from the body of a person who has died, for use in a person whose condition is critical. This provision is only applicable in emergency cases where first degree relations cannot be traced. In this regard the clause provides for the district surgeon to donate the required tissue in place of merely authorizing the removal thereof as at present.

Fourthly, clause 1 clarifies the position, regarding approval by the Minister, of institutions which may issue identity tags to be worn by persons who wish to make it known after their death that they had donated their bodies or a part thereof for therapeutic or scientific purposes as contemplated in the Act.

Finally, clause 1 remedies an omission in the Act by providing for consent given under that section by persons for the performance of post-mortem examinations on their bodies, to be revoked by them. This was an omission.

Clause 2 merely rectifies the omission from section 15 of a reference to the penalty for contravention of the provisions of section 7 (1) of the Act, which makes it an offence to use a gonad removed from the body of any person in the body of another person without the consent of the Minister.

In conclusion, I wish to mention that the Bill has been drawn up in consultation with the Attorneys-General, the Medical Council, the Medical Association, the Directors of Hospital Services of the different provinces and other interested parties, all of whom support the proposals.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. There are only one or two small points that I would like to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister. With regard to the question of the giving of consent by outside people for post-mortems, I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should not forget that we must at all times take into consideration the religious beliefs of people and that before consent is given in any way, the feelings of the families should be respected in so far as postmortems are concerned. Even in those cases where a person feels that he does not have long to live and donates his body for research or for scientific purposes, we must, as I say to the hon. the Minister, hear what the family have to say about their religious objections, if they have any. That is the one point I wanted to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In connection with the next point I want to deal with, I should like to refer to page 5 of this Bill, where we deal with the procedure that is to be adopted if the family cannot be traced and where it may be desirable to get authorization for the donation of a body. Here we allow the district surgeon to give permission. The hon. the Minister has mentioned that the Medical Council and the Medical Association have looked at this measure and have agreed with him. I wonder whether it would be ethical for a district surgeon who is attending a person who may have been injured in an accident and whose family cannot be traced, to give his consent on finding that that person is on the verge of death, that the body may be used for scientific or surgical research, whether that person has given his consent himself or not. I wonder whether a district surgeon who is disinterested in the treatment of that patient should not give permission for donation of the body.

In other words, I am not at all in favour of allowing the district surgeon who is treating the patient to be the district surgeon who will make the donation of the body or part of it. I do not know how my colleagues feel about this, but it is a thought that has come to me and I thought that the hon. the Minister ought to know how I feel about it. I do not know whether he thinks that an amendment may be necessary as far as that is concerned, but I leave the matter in his hands and I am sure that he will give it due consideration.

The next problem I would like to refer to is the matter of consent where the members of the family are brought in. Here we not only have a spouse or any major child or any parent, but the words “or guardian”, are brought into this clause as well. Let us take a family of three or four adult children and a mother. I wonder whether the hon. Minister could tell us what will happen if the eldest child gives his consent that his father’s heart can be used for a transplant while the other members of the family disagree. What do we do in cases like those where there is not agreement in the family? Whom do we ask, whose advice do we take and whose permission must we get? The hon. Minister must look at this clause again and tell the House how he feels about it. I think there could be serious conflicting opinions in the family. Here, as far as I can see, it is not indicated whether the spouse has precedence over the eldest child or whether the eldest child has precedence over the younger children.

With these comments I say to the Minister once again that we will support the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr.Speaker, since the new Act came into operation and has been implemented in practice for a long time, certain problems have inevitably emerged, because it is almost impossible to anticipate all the practical problems all the time. Therefore it is necessary for Acts, and that includes this particular Act which has been implemented since 1970, to be amended from time to time. If one looks at the principles contained in this Act, there is, in the first instance, the question of the consent that may be obtained for the right to remove tissue, and this is supplemented by this Bill in respect of the right to have post-mortem examinations performed and to give such consent. Then there is the question of by whom such consent may be given. Consequently the original Act is rightly being supplemented so that the guardian of a deceased person may also give consent. Under specific circumstances the district surgeon may also give consent. Then the Bill goes on to provide that a person who has given consent, may cause his consent to be revoked, and, finally, the Bill provides the penalties that may be imposed if the provisions contained in it are not carried out. The question that arises is to whom donations may be made in terms of the original Act. A person may make a donation of his body tissue to a hospital, a medical practitioner or a dentist so that it may be used for certain specified purposes. The purposes for which it may be donated, are mainly for education, for research, for therapy and for organ or tissue transplants. In addition, the donation can be made to a medical school, a dental school, or to a university. Finally, a donation can also be made to a person. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could not give us an indication in regard to this matter at the Committee Stage. It seems as though the original Act has left certain deficiencies which may be supplied here, because I cannot readily imagine what a person who is not associated with either a university, a hospital or a medical school could do with such a donation. Perhaps the Minister could clarify this problem to us and effect an amendment, if necessary.

As regards the consent which the district surgeon may give in specific circumstances, there are certain conditions. In the first instance, if those persons referred to in the proposed subsection (2) (a) as having to give consent, are not readily available, the district surgeon may give such consent. Furthermore, it is provided that two medical practitioners are to state that it is essential for this consent to be obtained. The hon. member for Rosettenville has objections in regard to this matter. He mentioned the example of a district surgeon treating a particular case. I think his objection may be a quite valid one; perhaps it is necessary for the provision to be defined more clearly in that respect. I do not think that it is quite in order for a district surgeon who has treated a particular case and is also acting in his capacity as a public servant, to have to make that decision.

There are certain other aspects in regard to the consent by the district surgeon which I should just like to emphasize. The fact remains that this procedure will only be followed in exceptional cases. But allow me to emphasize that we must be sure that this provision in the Bill will not be abused. Let us state very emphatically that this procedure shall only be followed in exceptional circumstances; for we have certain human rights to protect. I think the hon. member for Rosettenville also mentioned that we should pay regard to certain religious objections which people might have in this regard.

In the paragraph concerning post-mortem examinations, section 2 (a) of the original Act was not quite clear about this matter. In the years when I was in practice, I often received requests from people who were keen to have post-mortem examinations after their death. Other people refused to have post-mortem examinations. In this Amendment Bill it is stated clearly that consent may be given beforehand. But I just want to point out, though, that there can be no restriction concerning the performance of a post-mortem examination in the case of an unnatural death. Therefore I think that in this respect this Bill is supplying a deficiency that is to be found in the original Act.

On subsection (2) (b) (i) of the existing Act I have another question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. While we are dealing with this Act, we may just as well look at this particular aspect. The reason advanced is that tissue may be donated when the life of a patient is at stake. Now, I feel that in specific circumstances it may be essential that we also provide in the Act that tissue may be donated when the permanent malfunction of a patient is involved, and not only when his life is in danger.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned, I was saying that subsection (2) (b) (i) of section 2 of the existing Anatomical Donations and Post-Mortem Examinations Act provided that a district surgeon may authorize the removal of any specified tissue from the body of such person after he has died, provided that no such authorization shall be given unless, in the case of any tissue other than eye tissue, two other medical practitioners have stated in writing that in their opinion the use of such tissue in the body of another person is immediately necessary in order to save the life of such other person. That is the position if consent cannot be obtained in terms of the other provisions of the Act. I should like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister who is dealing with this Bill. The plea is that at the Committee Stage we should take another look at this particular section of the original Act. I am of the opinion that this provision ought to be made applicable in a case where it is essential to prevent the permanent malfunction or damage of an important organ or system. That may mean the difference between a healthy person who can help himself and, on the other hand, such a person being an invalid for the rest of his life. I think it is extremely important that we should also give consideration to these particular circumstances. This provision will in particular be more applicable in the near future owing to the rapid development which is also taking place in the field of micro surgery. Specially now, with the visit of Dr. Lee, who is a world expert in the field of micro surgery, this science is the subject of very close scrutiny. In fact, at the moment he is demonstrating techniques in South Africa in this regard.

This Bill is obviously not a contentious one, and it contains many good principles. It may be improved even further so as to meet the needs of our modern science. Of course, it is not easy today to keep pace with the rapid development of science.

Mr. Speaker, the two hon. members who spoke, i.e. the member for Rosettenville and the member for Newcastle, raised a number of important points. Just before dealing with them, I may inform the House that, unless legislation was passed in other countries during the past month or two, there can be no doubt about the fact that this legislation of South Africa is the most modern legislation in this regard in the entire world. In fact, I have been told that at a recent congress in San Francisco in regard to the transplantation and donation of tissue, the South African Act was held up as the pattern on which they designed their own. I think it is good for us in South Africa to know this.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made the important point that the wishes of the family or nearest relatives had to be taken into consideration when a post-mortem examination was performed. He also emphasized that there were various religions and that there were various approaches to this matter. The point to which he referred, has in fact been covered in this legislation. Previously such a person could also donate his body for a post-mortem examination, but he could never undo it again. Now we are also making provision to the effect that if his family should convince him or his religion should compel him to alter his donation, he may in fact do so. The second point raised by the hon. member was that he had misgivings about the fact that the same district surgeon who was treating the patient, would also make the decision laid down in paragraph (b). In such circumstances the medical ethics of that member will in any case dictate to him the line of action he is to adopt. That is the first point. In the second place, we should be careful not to complicate the donation and the use of the tissue. It may happen that there may only be one district surgeon available. I also want to mention the other point to the hon. member, namely that I think something of that nature will not happen often in practice. One will not find very often that the district surgeon is also the person attending to the patient. This can happen, but I do not think it will be a frequent occurrence. The fact of the matter is that this only happens in emergencies. I want to agree with the hon. member for Newcastle, who also raised this point. I want to tell the hon. member for Newcastle and the hon. member for Rosettenville that the present Act provides that a district surgeon may in any case authorize the removal of tissue in cases where the next of kin cannot be traced and where he is convinced that they cannot be traced. This is what the present Act provides in regard to the removal of tissue from the human body. Now the lawyers tell us that this is not enough. If the tissue has been removed, one still cannot use it. All we are doing on page 5 of the Bill is, instead of retaining the words “authorize the removal”, to provide that he may donate the tissue. Now both are being covered. It can be removed and it can be used immediately. In principle, therefore, we have not deviated from the provision in the previous legislation. This is only being done in order to make the use of such tissue possible.

There is another point I want to point out to hon. members. Reference is only made here to eye tissue. Hon. members know that things have to be done very quickly if one wants to save a person’s sight by using the eye tissue of a deceased person. It is also provided very clearly that he may only give authorization in the case of eye tissue, and in the case of any tissue other than eye tissue, two other medical practitioners are to state in writing that this is necessary. In other words, in any other case it must be two medical practitioners. But in the case of eye tissue, where time and speed are important, he may carry out this function. If there were to be any delay, one could endanger the life of the recipient —in other words, the very person one wishes to help.

Then the hon. member raised another point, i.e. that there might be differences of opinion in a family. To me it is obvious that the authorities wanting to obtain the tissue for use, would from the nature of the case accept the authority of the senior person in the family. I simply cannot imagine that hospital authorities or a district surgeon would, in a case where the body of the father of the family is involved, accept the affirmative reply of a child if the mother refuses to give permission. Therefore I think that we should give this provision a chance in practice, without placing any unnecessary obstacle in the way.

Then there is a last point that was raised by the hon. member for Newcastle. He expressed misgivings about a certain term used several times in this legislation, i.e. that it may also be donated to a person. It may happen in practice that a person wishes to donate a part of his body or certain tissue in his body to a specific person. In this regard I am thinking of the case of, say, a father who is suffering from an incurable disease and who is aware of the fact that his son or his wife is blind; he is keen to donate his eye tissue, but he does not want to donate it to anybody; he wants to donate it specifically to that son or wife of his. Then there is the case of a person who, humanly speaking, only has a few days to live. He may know that a close relative of his, a good friend of his, desperately needs a normal kidney. He wants to donate that kidney, but before his death he wants to stipulate to his own satisfaction, that he is not going to donate that kidney to the kidney bank, but to this close relative of his. Therefore I think that one should retain in the Bill this provision in regard to a donation to a “person” In my own mind I have some doubts as to whether in certain cases, it does not in fact go to the person who wants to do the transplant. Therefore, from the legal angle, I think we should retain the word “person” here.

Sir, I think I have now dealt with all the points raised here, and I thank hon. members for their interesting contributions and for their support for this Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Prior to the passing of the Dental Mechanicians Act, Act No. 30 of 1945, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council exercised control over dental mechanicians in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act of 1928. Since the date of the coming into operation of the Dental Mechanicians Act this function which includes, inter alia, control of the training of dental mechanicians, has become the responsibility of a new statutory body, i.e. the Dental Mehcanicians Board.

In terms of section 16 (1) (c) of the Dental Mechanicians Act, read with section 16 (3) (c), no person, other than a dentist or an apprentice dental mechanician, may carry on the work of a dental mechanician, unless he has been registered as a dental mechanician under section 12.

The requirements for registration laid down in section 13 of the Act are as follows—

1. (a) possession of a prescribed certificate of competency granted after examination; and
2. (b) training through an apprenticeship course for a period of not less than five years or employment for a period of not less than five years in the work of a dental mechanician— in both cases under a contract registered by the Board in terms of section 15.

In the past the aforementioned system of training provided a considerable number of problems to the Dental Mechanicians Board, because it was virtually impossible to ensure that a dental mechanician received proper training in all ramifications of dental mechanics.

Consequently the Dental Mechanicians Board instructed its Education Committee to investigate an alternative system of training which would eliminate the problems experienced with the present system. After a careful investigation into the matter, in co-operation with the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education, this committee made recommendations which were unanimously accepted by the Board. I want to emphasize the fact that the Board, which is a representative one, accepted them unanimously. In brief, what these recommendations amount to is the abolition of the present system of training and the change-over to a full-time course of years at a College for Advanced Technical Education followed by an orientation training period of one year at an approved laboratory for dental work; in other words 3½ years altogether, and not the dual system which existed before. This proposal has the support of the Department of Higher Education. The matter was discussed with representatives of the Departments of Bantu Education, Coloured Relations and Indian Affairs as well. All three these departments are in favour of the new system and are also prepared to arrange for the establishment of facilities for the training of each non-White race group at suitable educational institutions.

The proposal also has the support of my own department as, on the one hand, it will effect uniform standards and supervision of the training of dental mechanicians and, on the other hand, will contribute much towards changing the attitude of dental mechanicians from a labourer-orientated one into that of a professional para-dental group. Hon. members themselves know that we have progressed a long way in the direction of the registration of para-medical services.

The Dental Mechanicians Act, however, makes no provision for a course and practical training of the nature envisaged, and consequently the provisions contained in clauses 4, 5 (b) and (c), 8 (c) and 18 (b) and (c) are being proposed for the granting of the necessary powers. Clause 4 deals with the registration of students; 5 (b) with the training of dental mechanicians abroad; 5 (c) with training in the Republic; 8 (c) makes provision for exemption from the prohibition in section 16 (1) (c) for students for the purposes of study; and 18 (b) and (c) makes provision for authority to the Board for making rules regarding the registration of students, training centres, the standard of education for admission as a student in dental mechanics and the approval of laboratories for practical training and matters related thereto.

In view of the fact that the proposed new method of academic and practical training replaces the present method of apprenticeship, provision is being made in clause 7 for no new contracts to be registered, so that persons who are receiving training at present according to the present system, are protected. At the same time provision is being made in clause 5 (a) for persons who are receiving training according to the present system abroad, to be protected as well. In other words, everyone who is studying at the present moment is being given the necessary protection.

In consideration of the technological development in dental prosthetics it is also important to create facilities for providing specialized post-basic training to dental mechanicians, who have undergone their training under the apprenticeship system, so as to inform them of new developments, and also so as to train dental mechanicians who want to specialize. In other words, at present one already has specialization even in this field. Provision for such courses is being made in clauses 6 and 18 (c) and (gE).

Since the establishment of the Board it has consisted of, inter alia, a dental mechanician contractor and two dental mechanicians carrying on the calling of dental mechanicians as employees. The interested parties made representations for this position to be entrenched in the Act and for a clear definition to be included that only contractors may elect their representatives and that only such employees may elect their two representatives. These representations are being implemented in clause 2, because we regard this as being a very reasonable request.

The present provision concerning the payment of annual fees by dentists and dental mechanicians gives rise to many administrative problems. At present it is only provided that a prescribed annual fee is payable which becomes payable on different dates for the different people registered. In order to simplify the procedure, provision is being made in clause 3, inter alia, for all fees to be payable on 1st January, and provision is also being made for exempting persons who are not practising or who are over 70 years of age from paying the fees.

The remaining provisions of the Bill are aimed at intensifying the control of the illegal trade in artificial teeth. This is a rather serious matter. As hon. members know, only medical practitioners and dentists are, because of their training, qualified to diagnose mouth conditions. If anybody else were to do so, it could seriously harm the patient and if untrained persons were to supply artificial teeth directly to a patient, the patient could experience serious health problems. Hon. members will remember only too well how in earlier years many people had their teeth in their waistcoat pockets more often than in their mouths. This was as a result of the fact that the teeth had been made by people who did not have the necessary knowledge. Consequently it is absolutely essential that the public be protected against the action of untrained persons in this regard. In order to implement this, the following measures are being proposed—

1. (a) In clause 8 (a) the onus is being placed on the accused to prove that he is innocent and has not performed an act which may be performed only by a dentist or dental mechanician. This is being done because the Police are experiencing endless problems in finding evidence for convicting persons who commit malpractices.
2. (b) At present it is illegal for any person who is not registered to perform dental work. However, there is no provision that another person may not employ an untrained person to perform such work. This shortcoming is being eliminated in clause 8 (d).
3. (c) Clause 9 provides that the Board has to be notified within a prescribed period of any laboratory in which dental work is performed, so that the Board may exercise control over such laboratories.
4. (d) The objects of the Act can be circumvented by establishing companies and partnerships through which untrained persons acquire control in such a company and partnership. In order to eliminate this shortcoming, clause 10 (a) prohibits companies from performing the work of a dental mechanician, and clause 10 (b) restricts partnerships to either dentists or dental mechanicians with regard to the work of a dental mechanician. This is a wise step.
5. (e) Clause 11 places a prohibition on—

1. (i) any person other than a dentist or dental mechanician contractor dealing in unmounted artificial teeth; and
2. (ii) on any person supplying unmounted artificial teeth to a person other than a dentist or dental mechanician contractor.

1. (f) Experience has taught that as a result of the numerous ways in which unmounted artificial teeth can be obtained, the keeping of a register by a dentist or dental mechanician serves no purpose and is a waste of time. Consequently the keeping of such a register is being confined to a person dealing in unmounted artificial teeth.
2. (g) In terms of clause 15 the Board may appoint inspectors to inspect laboratories for dental work, and the rest of the clause deals with the obligations, functions and powers of inspectors.
3. (h) Clause 16 deals with penalties. In this regard the offences in respect of acts which may be performed only by a dentist or dental mechanician (section 16); control of laboratories for dental work (section 17); and dealing in unmounted artificial teeth (section 19) are regarded as being so serious that the penalties are being doubled so as to deter offenders. In addition, provision is being made for penalties for persons who obstruct inspectors in the performance of their duties.
4. (i) At present section 30 makes provision only for the forfeiture of unmounted artificial teeth upon offences. In clause 17 forfeiture is being extended also to material used in the manufacturing process.

Clauses 13 and 15 simply contain provisions for bringing the Act into agreement with the Industrial Conciliation Act, 1956, and clause 19 simply modernizes particular expressions in the Act.

In conclusion I should like to mention that the proposals for the provisions of this Bill came from the Dental Mechanicians Board, on which dentists and dental mechanician contractors and employees serve. The Dental Association of South Africa, the South African Master Dental Mechanician Association and the South African Dental Mechanician Employees’ Organization were consulted as well. All these organizations support the provisions of the Bill.

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill and we will support the Second Reading. There are one or two observations I should like to make regarding the Bill. Let me start off by saying that we have here a peculiar position and it would appear to me that dental mechanics are divided amongst themselves, although the Minister has indicated that the dental mechanics as a whole and their various organizations have supported the Bill. The anomaly that has arisen is that we have not only the dentist who employs a dental mechanic, but we have the dental mechanics who are employing dental mechanics under contract, and both these people have an opportunity of negotiating with the dentist as to the value of their services. I am hoping that through this Bill we may obviate what has been going on in the past and that the dental mechanics whether they be master dental mechanics or whether they be the contractors or the employers of cither the dentists or the contractors, will have a uniform tariff of fees and will come to agreement amongst themselves as to what they should charge the dentists.

Talking about fees, I would like to recommend that the tariff for fees should be in line with the method that has been used by the Medical Association and that they should have a standard tariff of fees especially when they are dealing with people who belong to medical aid schemes, so that the members of the medical aid schemes requiring dental treatment, will know that for this type of work they will only have to pay so much towards the work that is being done by the dental mechanic through the dentist. Now, it is all very complicated. The charges go through several hands, and it means that the final result could be rather prohibitive to the person who is having, say, a set of dentures made. For that reason I say we must try to shortcut the handling of these procedures.

I have had a complaint from the dental mechanics about their name. A little while ago we spoke about directors-general and assistant directors-general instead of directors and assistant directors. Let us take the case of a dental mechanic. Now, the status of the dental mechanic has been raised somewhat, particularly through this Bill, and if ever a person should not be called a mechanic, it is a dental mechanic, because he is not a mechanic or mechanician.

What is he?

He is a technician. I think the time has come that we should call these people dental technicians. Whether we can do it in this Bill or not is another matter because I understand that the term dental mechanician goes right through the original Act and it would be difficult for us to amend only parts of the Act and leave the other parts untouched. But I should like the Minister to bear this in mind and perhaps on another occasion we can bring up the descriptive status of the dental mechanic and call him a dental technician. I think that would serve the purpose.

The new section 16 (1) (A) is one that perturbs me. It is the provision that the accused must prove his innocence. Our legal people will know much more about this than I do, naturally, but I am a little perturbed about this tendency in legislation today, not only to accuse a person but to put the onus on him to prove that he is not guilty. To me that is what this clause is meant to do. It assumes that a person is guilty; it does not go out to prove that he is guilty. The person who is accused must prove that he is not guilty.

What clause is that?

Clause 8 (a) on page 9. He has to prove that this has been an oversight of the law. I cannot call it a crime or even a misdemeanour.

You call it an oversight?

Let us call it that; it is not really a crime, is it? The dentist, of course, will say that it is a very serious offence for a dental technician to make a set of teeth, but is that worse than committing a murder? The man who commits a murder does not have to go through the same procedure as the man who has illicitly made a set of false teeth. This seems to me quite ridiculous. I wonder how my dental friends feel about it.

A little down in the mouth.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister sometime to have another look at this clause to see whether we could not include such an offender under the ordinary law and not take such extreme measures as are being taken in this Bill.

It is common practice in France.

There will be inspectors appointed to see that the work and provision of this Bill are carried out. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is making provision for inspectors to be trained to do their work properly, nor do I know what his field of inspectors is like at the moment. However, if the inspector is going to have to accuse the dental mechanic of doing something wrong, he should at least be properly trained to do so. These are not Police officers. The inspector who goes from one dental mechanic’s laboratory to another will be the person who will report the mechanic to the authorities when the mechanic has done something irregular. He is not a policeman and yet he is going to accuse this man of doing something illegally. The person concerned, whether he be innocent or not, may have to defend himself in a way that is becoming prevalent in our courts of law. Perhaps our legal people will give me some assistance on this matter. We wish to hear what they have to say about it. To me it does seem an extreme measure.

Leave it to us doctors.

That will double the price !

The dental mechanics are also perturbed that the formation of the board, which has been brought into being particularly for their own use, may be top-heavy with dentists. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister inferred that the dentists themselves, members of the Dental Association, will not have a majority of members on the board.

The dentists are not represented at all.

They will not be represented?

Not at all.

So that objection of the dental mechanics falls away. Is that so?

Yes. They accept it.

What I am interested in as well is the courses of study that are going to be prescribed for the dental mechanics. I take it they will be open to non-Whites as well as Whites?

Yes.

Will the Minister then allow a trained dental mechanic who is not White to work for a dental mechanic who is White or a contractor who is White?

You mean a black man can make white teeth? [Interjections.]

This is an important matter and I think we must have clarity on it because, if the hon. the Minister is going to allow non-Whites to train for two and a half years …

Three and a half years …

Two and a half years, training and a year with a dentist. Well, which dentist is he going to work with? Where is he going to get his clinical training from seeing there is only one qualified Black dentist? I think he has forgotten about that. Where is the Black man going to do his extra year’s clinical training if he cannot work for a White man? Will the hon. the Minister please explain this to the House? It is no good making provision for these people to be trained if one then finds that they cannot complete their training. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we must get clarity in regard to this matter once and for all. If he is going to train Black, Coloured or Indian people, let them work for White people. Let them be trained. No harm will be done. This is most important and it will at least provide an opening for those persons, especially Indian, Coloured and Bantu people, to do this work. I believe they will do it very well indeed. They should be able to find employment immediately after they have completed their training. These are the only observations I want to make and as I have said before, we will support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that this Dental Mechanicians Amendment Bill is of very great importance. If there had been no prosthetics, no dentures in this Republic, I would not like to imagine, with all due respect to the Chair, all the sour faces you would have to look at here every day. I think there is insufficient appreciation for what is being accomplished. As far as this amendment Bill is concerned, and since the term dental mechanicians is being used, I just want to mention that the designation “dental mechanicians” was laid down in 1945 under another Government. I want to agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville that “dental mechanician technicians” would be a better designation. The hon. member for Durban Point said by way of interjection: “Can a Black man make teeth for a White man?”

No, I said “Can a Black man make White teeth?”

The hon member for Durban Point asked if a Black man can make white teeth but with due respect, I would like to see the White man that can make teeth for a mouth like the hon. member for Durban Point has got. The hon. member for Rosettenville is a medical colleague of mine and we have served on several Select Committees together. There is a very strict professional code, a code which I appreciate very much, between the dental and the medical professions, but I have a funny feeling that my very good friend, the hon. member for Rosettenville did not get his information from trained dental technicians and that he has unfortunately received certain information from people that have abused this occupation.

*In this Bill a very important …

Just elaborate on that.

I should like very much to explain it. I was a member of this profession for many years, i.e. 20 years, before I came to this House. During that time I practised full-time. Since 1966 it has been my pleasant task, no longer to extract teeth literally, but to extract the teeth of the United Party figuratively. This Amendment Bill makes provision for the improvement of the training of dental technicians in the Republic of South Africa. That is the entire object of this Bill. During the many years I was in practice I had to watch dentures being made by people who did not have the necessary training, who did not have the necessary technical skill to do this properly. This results in injuries which could cause permanent damage. This is a proven scientific fact. That is why I am half surprised that the hon. member for Rosettenville should nevertheless want to break a lance for these people who have not really received any training. I also want to say that this Amendment Bill will be welcomed be the dentists in the Republic, as well as by the dental mechanicians who have received training. This is also in the interests of the general population. Ample provisions is being made here for the technical training of young people. Any young person who has the technical skill to work with his hands, who is artistic, can make a particular success of this profession. It has repeatedly been proved that dental mechanicians who know their work have a high income. The hon. member for Rosettenville wants to know what the position in respect of fees is. Specific fees are being laid down as well as minimum salaries which have to be paid to mechanicians by dentists. I do not want in any way to see this Amendment Bill as one which will mar relations between dentists and mechanicians. On the contrary; it will be conducive to good relations. Our experience in the country areas was that a person applies for work, and when he turns up he knows so little about making dentures that it is pathetic to see how little knowledge he has of his own subject. Then one pays him a full month’s salary simply in order to get rid of him because he is a danger to the public. This happened in our practice. That is why we must be careful to entrench the position of the bona fide mechanician. I therefore want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this amendment Bill. The inspectorate will now have far more powers. The Dental Mechanicians Board will also, through this legislation, have more powers. It will now be a Board which will be able to fulfil its duties. I am also grateful for the clause in this Bill which exempts dentists who are no longer practising from paying the levy fees. Since 1966 I have had to submit a sworn statement repeatedly every year to the effect that I was no longer practising. Now it will no longer be necessary for me to do this. So, in all kinds of ways, provision has been made in this legislation to establish better relations.

The complaint put forward by the hon. member for Rosettenville that a person will now have to prove his innocence is not a new legal concept. On the contrary. If the hon. member for Rosettenville knew how there quacks carried on, he would realize that there is only one way of dealing with them, i.e. to stipulate that they will have to prove their innocence. We must look after the health of the people in South Africa. Sound dentures, a set of false teeth which can be used, is in the interests of the health of the individual. This amendment Bill is therefore of great importance at our population.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before the House is being supported by the Opposition. So far the only speakers we have had were the Minister himself, who introduced it, and the hon. members for Rosettenville and Rustenburg. All members who have taken part so far are medical men—the hon. member for Rustenburg being in the dental profession. Therefore one enters this debate with temerity in the light of the medical knowledge which has been displayed so far. However, it is a Bill which affects the dental mechanicians and therefore I think it is important that some of the views that have been expressed by them should have the consideration of this House when we consider this Bill. The main principle involved in improving the existing legislation is one which we support and it is obvious from the provisions of this Bill that it should bring about a more satisfactory situation. However, there are some aspects I would like to discuss. The hon. Minister indicated that this Bill has the support of dental mechanicians generally and of their association. The position is of course that there are certain persons who are interested in this profession and who have expressed opinions and doubts in regard to certain clauses of the Bill. This evening I would like to put forward some of these doubts to the hon. Minister for his consideration. Firstly, the position of the dental mechanicians is one which causes a great deal of concern to the Dental Technicians Association and those persons connected with the occupation of dental mechanician. If you look at the history behind this legislation, you will see that the original Act of 1945 created certain machinery whereby this occupation would be subject to industrial council agreement and that it no longer would be an occupation of a para-medical group. When he introduced this Bill, the hon. the Minister indicated this evening that he has been thinking along the lines of a para-medical group. The situation has existed since 1945 that these people, the dental mechanicians are entirely dependent upon the dentists for their employment and for their work. One only has to look at the history involved to see that there have been certain shortcomings and that representations have been made to the present hon. Minister of Health and his predecessor to consider various aspects concerning the principal Act. The various disputes which arose were placed before the Minister and the Minister himself accepted that these difficulties existed. He appointed a departmental committee of enquiry, a committee known as the Marr Committee of Enquiry, to investigate the whole position. It would appear from the Bill that is before us that there are still certain difficulties in this regard as far as negotiations between the dental mechanicians and the Dental Association are concerned. Although amendments are being made by clause 13, which deals with the labour committee which functions as an industrial council, it would appear that it virtually remains unaltered in many respects. Certain amendments are being incorporated in this clause, but the position seems to remain unaltered in regard to the difficulty that arises when it comes to the ratification of these agreements. It appears that the dental mechanician contractors have had a court case against them which has been taken on appeal to the Supreme Court by the Dental Association. This has placed in doubt the effectiveness of the bargaining power which was intended in the 1945 Act. This is a matter which affects the labour relations and the question of the labour position of the contractors and of the Dental Association. I think the hon. the Minister should give us some indication as to the reasons why he has not deemed it necessary or advisable to incorporate the recommendation of the interdepartmental committee of enquiry into the diffiulties that existed between the Dental Mechanicians’ Association and the Dental Association. I do not want to weary the House with these various recommendations, because you would possibly rule me out of order as being irrelevant. However, there is this one aspect which is incorporated in the Bill. I believe it is of vital importance to ensure that we have a workman-like arrangement as far as this type of legislation is concerned.

The other aspect in this Bill which I think requires further consideration, is that which is contained in clause 8 and deals with the provisions concerning the type of work to be undertaken by qualified persons. Here I realize it is important in an occupation such as this that a qualified person, a person who is fully trained, should be the one responsible. Provision is made for the training of these people to ensure that the highest standard of workmanship is obtained by these dental mechanicians. However, I wish to deal with one aspect in clause 8 (d), which adds the following subsection to section 16—

The hon. the Minister mentioned this clause when he introduced the Bill this evening. However, it has been brought to my notice that in certain instances it might be necessary for certain work to be undertaken by a person who might not need the requirement set out in the clause. Here I understand that the master dental technicians have expressed opposition to this particular aspect in a memorandum which they submitted. I presume they also submitted this memorandum to the hon. the Minister. In it they state that there is certain work which can be undertaken in a laboratory by auxiliary labour, such as plaster work, polishing and cleaning. The legislation that is now proposed could prevent them from utilizing such labour. This has a bearing particularly on the costs involved. In recent times, in line with many other things, the costs in this field are increasing. Dental mechanicians, particularly the contractors themselves, from time to time make complaints that they are unable to make a satisfactory living from their occupation. There can be difficulties with the dentists, too. But the concern here is to endeavour to keep costs down, if it is at all possible. Provision to enable these people to employ such auxiliary labour in order to keep down costs would seem to be necessary. Any increase in the costs the dental mechanician might have, he passes on to the dentist, and is in turn passed to the patient. In recent times one has seen tremendous increases in costs as far as dentists are concerned. On the 14th March there was a report which indicated that the Dental Association feels that an overall 25 per cent increase in fees might be necessary. It also referred to the fact that the cost of false teeth, for instance, had increased by between 20 per cent and 25 per cent during the past year. I believe that this has an important bearing on the possibility that a person should be enabled, without in any way lowering his standards, to employ auxiliary labour for certain aspects of his work, which would help to reduce costs, however slight. I believe a person should be allowed to do so, provided his standard of workmanship is maintained.

There are other items on various clauses which one can discuss perhaps in the Committee Stage, but it is obvious that this Bill is one which would improve the situation, and therefore we on this side of the House believe it should be supported at the Second Reading. However, we would like further elucidation of some of the provisions of these clauses during the Committee Stage.

I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Rustenburg saying what he did. He has a unique position in this House, in that he is the only dentist here. He indicated that he did practise as a dentist, but has given that up now. As I heard him, he said that when he came here he was here to draw the teeth of the “Sappe.” But I do not think he has been very successful in that operation, because when he came here in 1966 there were not so many Sappe. There are more here now and there are more coming. It looks therefore as if he will have to get someone to help him.

He probably will not be here by that time.

Yes, that could be.

He will be out of business.

The thing I ask myself is: What does this Bill achieve and what does it not achieve? I believe that this Bill will not solve all the problems which face this particular activity of dental mechanicians, dentists and their trainees. I understand from the hon. the Minister and I agree with him wholeheartedly, that the training should be strictly controlled. It should also be of the highest possible standard. I am very glad to hear that the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education will provide a laid-down standard of training. But what I ask myself after that is: What can the man who has completed his training really expect as protection or security when he enters this profession? It seems to me as if there are certain factors which are still in doubt, certain problems that have not been resolved and certain matters which could make it very difficult for a young man entertaning this profession to make a reasonable living.

I know that there has been consultation. I too have tried to find out opinions from the various sectors involved in this particular Bill. It would seem from the reaction of the dental profession that they are not unduly concerned with the position as it stands now. The main objections come from the Master Dental Mechanicians Association. They have raised several objections, which I do not believe have been completely answered in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech.

In the first instance they are concerned about the question which the hon. member for Umbilo dealt with very adequately, namely in regard to negotiations in connection with charges made. I would welcome the assurance of the Minister that this Bill would put the matter beyond any dispute at all. Another matter which they raise is that they believe there have been certain hardships which they were prepared to accept when they gave up the position which existed when they had direct contact with the public. I would be the first to agree that it is undesirable for a dental mechanician to have direct contact with the public. All his activities should go through the services of a dentist. The hon. member for Umbilo has referred to the question of the price. The memorandum which we have received indicated that there could be a disparity which leads one to believe that one section in this tier of activity is doing well from a profit point of view, whereas the mechanician who is actually making the dentures is faring rather badly. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has any figures. The figures represented in the memorandum which we received last year, indicate that the dentist pays a dental technician contractor R14,95 for full upper and lower dentures. The patient, through medical aid, is charged R74. If he does not come under medical aid a higher charge is levied.

Is the R74 only for the dentist?

For the upper and lower dentures. It includes the impression, the fitting and the services which the dentist renders.

Extractions?

Extractions, yes. I am not implying that the dentist is making too much profit at this stage. It would appear that the dental mechanician contractor is hardly getting a fair price or reward for his labours. The claim is that he takes a minimum of five hours to make a double set of dentures. This provides the dental mechanician contractor with a rate of R3 per hour. The claim is that the minimum rate for an employee technician is 90 cents per hour. In practice, however, it works out at R1,34 per hour if you want to get people to work for you. On this basis it is claimed that on an eight-hour working day with the variant factors of wages, material, rent and overheads, there is simply no profit for the dental mechanician contractor. I am just quoting this example which appears in the memorandum which I regard as having been compiled by responsible people. I would welcome the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the amendment in this Bill will make provision for suitable negotiation and arbitration if any of the parties is at any time aggrieved in this particular respect.

Reference has been made to the employment of unregistered persons, and the claim is that if these persons are not employed on the normal, simple work, unskilled work, it could effect an increase in costs. The hon. the Minister has also indicated that training facilities will be made available for non-Whites. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that it might be possible under certain circumstances for provision to be made for non-Whites to carry out the semi-skilled work providing that they have the necessary minimum educational qualification which would enable them to proceed to a period of training and ultimate qualification as a dental mechanician. I believe that we would then be providing some sort of training ground, giving them an opportunity to earn a living and to learn to serve their own people in their own areas later on.

I now come to clause 10, and I listened with great interest to the hon. the Minister’s explanation of it when he said that existing companies would be protected but that in future there would be no more companies of dental mechanicians. In future there would only be partnerships. He indicated that there could be abuses in so far as companies were concerned. I hope that when he replies, he will give some indication of the nature of the abuse. As I read the Act and the Bill, the companies consist only of dental mechanicians themselves. No lay people or dentists are entitled to be directors of those companies. This group of people might find it more convenient from an administration point of view to operate as a registered company rather than a partnership. In any case I believe that if the Minister, who is aware of this position, could transplant this legislation on to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, he would have in South Africa a much more satisfied profession in that respect than he has at the moment. He knows only too well of some of the troubles which are being encountered in that direction. But I will not incur your wrath by going any further into that, Mr. Speaker.

Would you like that position for pharmacists?

That is virtually what they are asking for.

But would you like to see it?

Yes.

Then I want to refer to the question of the levy in clause 3. I have no criticism of it at all. Any dentist or dental mechanic after the age of 70 will not be called upon to pay this levy. This of course does not apply as the hon. the Minister knows, to the medical profession or the pharmaceutical profession. I am just wondering what provision there will be to establish beyond a reasonable doubt the age of the people to whom this exemption will apply, because I understand that as far as dental mechanics are concerned, this could be done by regulation under this particular Act.

It is purely a levy.

I understand that, but you would surely have to produce some evidence of age. Anyway, Sir, I leave that point. It just seemed to me that there could be a problem in regard to the regulations, particularly in the case of dentists who come under another Act.

Sir, I think the other points have been adequately dealt with by previous speakers. I only seek the assurance from the hon. the Minister that the difficulties will be covered by this Bill and that it will not be necessary to come to the House in a year or two to clear up some of the apparent problems which exist amongst the various tiers of the organization.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the hon. member for Berea need be all that pessimistic about this Bill. The history of this whole issue was given here by the hon. member for Umbilo; it has gone on for years, and it is quite true that the dentists on the one hand and the dental mechanicians on the other hand have been at loggerheads for years. That is why we had this interdepartmental commission; for many years we made very little, if any, progress, and for the first time now I can come to the House and say that we have the overwhelming support of all these people. I am quite aware that there are certain people who have misgivings, but they represent a small majority. I may say to the hon. member for Umbilo with regard to the problem that he has with clause 8 (d) that we have had no complaints about it whatsoever. As a matter of fact, there was a meeting of the board only yesterday and they all agreed; they are quite happy with the Bill as it reads now.

They sent in a memorandum.

I have not seen that memorandum; it may be in the departmental offices. I am being quite honest; I have not seen that particular one, but even so, that must be the view of a very small minority. I am only too grateful that I can come to the House and say that we have made this progress. There was even this court case.

The other point which the hon. member for Berea made was with regard to the question of costs. Let me say quite clearly that in this Bill there is no provision whatever to deal with the question of costs, but as far as dental mechanicians are concerned, they are now brought under the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956; previously it was the Act of 1937. I do not, therefore, foresee any problems in future, because newer, modern legislation will now be applicable in this case. On this question of costs I am, of course, as worried as hon. members, not only about medical costs but the costs of dental treatment and of dentures. Let me put it to the hon. member this way: As far as medical schemes are concerned—and about 80 per cent of our people today belong to medical schemes—the fees are fixed by the Remuneration Commission which has just sat, and I hope to be able to make an announcement in this respect tomorrow week with regard to new fees which are to come into operation as from the 1st April. An over-all fee is fixed for all medical schemes for the services of a dentist and for supplying dentures. There is no possibility, therefore, that that fee can be exceeded as a result of overcharging or as a result of unduly high salaries paid to these people. The other point which the hon. member for Umbilo made is that dental mechanicians are entirely dependent on the dentist for their livelihood. That is quite correct, but that is how we want it. That is the only way in which we can exercise proper control. The only person who should deal with the public when it comes to dentures is the dentist who is a qualified person.

Provided there is machinery for equitable agreement between the two groups.

We have now made provision for that machinery.

*The hon. member for Rustenburg has facilitated my task, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it is always a pleasant experience to listen to someone who is an expert in his own field and who can speak on that subject with authority. I think I should really tell the House and the country, in pursuance of what was said by the hon. member, that our people do not always realize the importance of a proper set of teeth in one’s mouth. I hope that this legislation, with the attempts made by us on the part of the State to ensure that there is a properly controlled service for the public, will at the same time lead to a renewed awareness of the fact that it is the duty of every individual to care for his own teeth.

+The hon. member for Rosettenville wanted to know whether the inspectors would have a certain amount of training. We are not making specific provision here for training, but I should think that the department would be sensible enough to appoint a person who would not only be qualified to do the job, but who would have the necessary status with the dentists so that when visiting dentists he would be able to speak with authority and also give advice to them. I think that is the only way in which we can handle this situation. I can also give the hon. member the assurance that dentists will not be in the majority on this board. Furthermore, the hon. member was worried about clause 8 (1) (a), in terms of which the accused has to prove his innocence. I can tell the hon. member from experience that we and the Police have had over the years that it is really necessary to do it this way, but may I point out to the hon. member that this only applies to trading in artificial dentures by unqualified persons for gain. This clause is limited in its scope therefore. It applies specifically to cases where there is trading in artificial teeth and where it is done for gain.

Then the hon. member raised the question of the training of non-Whites. I have indicated that the Departments of Bantu Administration, Indian Affairs and Coloured Affairs are quite prepared to make courses available if there are students interested in this course. The hon. member wanted to know where they are going to do their year’s training after the 2½-year course. We are making no provision whatsoever in this Bill to control the activities of a student either during his student days as to the place where he will work, or his activities after he is qualified. Say, for instance, that vou have a White contractor who would like to employ a non-White technician. I can see no problem at all, because that person would not be handling the public at all. He would be working in a factory; and these cases could be dealt with in the same way as we arrange matters in our factories today. One would, of course, use one’s persuasive powers to try to influence these non-White students to go and serve their own people after they have qualified. But, of course, at the moment there is the problem that there are very few dentists. We would be only too happy if non-Whites would enter for the course in dentistry which is available today and which might become available in the near future in the Western Cape for our Coloured people.

The hon. member then referred to the term “dental mechanic” and said that these people were perturbed because they are not described in a better way. If the hon. member will look at the Bill, he will see that they are described not as “dental mechanics” but as “dental mechanicians”. That is an improvement: they are not described as dental mechanics.

Who discovered that term?

They did. I believe they feel that they would like to be called “dental technologists”, but I am afraid it is too late now.

Some want to be called technicians.

You see, Sir, some people have one idea and others have a different idea. In this Bill we are describing them as “dental mechanicians”, and as far as I am concerned it is not a derogatory term at all.

They feel it.

I do not think that I have missed out any points.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that this Bill as a whole will put up the cost of dentures to the public?

No, I cannot see that at all. May I make the point again that tomorrow week I will announce in public, and it will be published in the Gazette, what the findings are of the Remuneration Commission in regard to dental and medical fees. [Interjection.] There is no reason whatsoever for the costs to go up. I cannot see that at all.

Is it a question of only employing qualified persons?

That is quite correct. It is the only way of having proper control.

Do you not think provision should be made for auxiliary services?

No, if we make provision for auxliary labour there will be an impossible situation where you cannot draw a distinction between the work of mechanicians. Because to make dentures today, every process in the making of the denture is a very specialized act. The making of the teeth as such, or perhaps the other appliances, is done by other people in any case. Those things are bought in bulk and are not necessarily the work of a dental mechanician.

What about the polishing?

Once the denture is being made, that is the work for one person. If the teeth have to be polished before —and they are usually bought and come in as polished teeth—it is not done there except for the finishing. But I think it will be a step backwards to make provision for that, because the whole crux of this Bill is the fact that we are now creating here a professional group with proper protection for themselves, so that we can give our people a high standard of dentures and also of dental mechanicians’ work. I may also say that we cannot possibly, because of lower cost, have a lower standard or less control. You cannot have it both ways.

There is the plastering and the polishing of the teeth.

I do not know what the plaster work is. They might be plasterers for all I know, but the point is that here you have a definite type of work which is almost a speciality, and we must confine that to those people who are trained to do the job. Because, do not forget, they must train for 2½ years plus one year; and we are doing this right through the medical profession today. That is also in answer to the hon. member for Durban Point. The hon. member will know that last year we had the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act and we amended it to make provision for the registration of the different categories of para-medical services, and quite a number—I cannot remember off-hand how many but perhaps ten—have already been registered. But that in no way, as far as I know or as far as the commission could establish, has affected the cost of medical services to the country at all, but it has given us the assurance that there is a much higher standard of work done by these people.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As a result of the application of the Medical Schemes Act, 1967—that is five years ago now—certain practical problems have come to light which have to a certain extent hampered the efficient functioning of the Central Council for Medical Schemes and which interfere with the proper implementation of the Act. These problems can be briefly summarized as follows:

Firstly, when the Act came into operation, there was only one organization which could be regarded as representative of medical aid schemes and which needed to be consulted in regard to the composition of the Remuneration Commission which was established in 1969. Provision for this exists in section 30 of the Act. In addition, I may tell hon. members that at a round table conference I had with the interested parties in 1969, there was still only this one association, so that there was no reason to make any change when the Act was amended at the time. The situation has changed now. There are at least three now, of which two work together and the other is independent. The two which work together and the one which is independent of them have more or less the same number of members and the same number of dependants whom they represent.

As I have said, the position has changed now. As a result of interests, group formation has taken place which has led to the establishment of two new organizations. It would be unfair to recognize and consult the original organizations, which are mentioned by name in the Act, in regard to the composition of the Remuneration Commission and not any other organization, especially since the other two organizations in fact represent more members than the organization mentioned. I have said that they are more or less equal in number. It would not be unreasonable to extend consultation to all organizations which are regarded and recognized as being representative of medical aid schemes, and therefore we are now making provision for that in clauses 1 and 3 (b), (c) and (d).

Several interested parties have recommended that the Act be amended to provide that the commission be appointed during a specific month of the year and that if an amended tariff of fees is recommended, it should come into operation on 1st January of the following year. Furthermore, the view is held that the period of two years within which a remuneration commission must be appointed, is too short to afford sufficient opportunity for the implications of the findings of such a commission to be evaluated in practice. As the position is at present, new tariffs come into operation during part of a financial year. As the position is at present, they would come into operation on 1st April. On a previous occasion I think they came into operation on a completely different date. Before the end of the subsequent financial year the next commission is appointed. Consequently it is not possible to evaluate the implications extending over a full financial year. These problems have now been experienced very clearly by the respective associations which recently had to submit evidence to the present commission.

Furthermore, the cost such a commission involves for the Government as well as for the various associations is very high, and I think that, in view of the high cost alone, the appointment of the commission within a period of two years is not justified.

These arrangements will contribute towards the determination of tariffs taking place in a more ordered way. Since three years is a relatively short period, the necessity of an interim appointment of the commission in fact does not exist, and the existing provisions in this regard are therefore being deleted. Provision for the new procedure is made in clause 3 (a) and (e) and an amendment in regard to the period appears in my name on the Order Paper, as hon. members have seen. It is a period of three years now. I may tell hon. members that I did not have much time to consult about this, but I take personal responsibility for it and I am sure that I shall receive the support of the responsible bodies and persons concerned here.

A further problem in respect of the tariff of fees is that different bodies and persons interpret the tariff of fees differently. As a result, there are disputes from time to time, which is not in the interests of any of the parties. It is absolutely essential that only one body should interpret the tariff of fees and that all the parties concerned should be bound by its interpretation. The Central Council for Medical Schemes is regarded as the most suitable body to deal with matters of this nature, since the Council continually has to deal with such matters in practice. Provision is being made for this in clause 3 (f).

For various reasons it is essential that the providers of services present their accounts within a fixed period and that the accounts be paid within a specific time. Naturally, medical schemes cannot build up large reserve funds and they are severely affected by the late submission of large accounts. Some accounts are received as late as 18 months after the service concerned was rendered. Members of schemes are prejudiced by this, since the rules of most schemes make provision for the payment of benefits on a reducing basis, with the result that all benefits are lost after certain fixed periods.

There is no reason why an account cannot be rendered within three months after a service has been rendered and why a doctor or a dentist, if he has failed to render an account, should not after four months forfeit the “guaranteed payment” of his account by a medical scheme. He will not necessarily have to forfeit the payment, but he will in fact have to forfeit the guarantee.

In clause 4 provision is made for regulating the administrative procedure in respect of the payment of accounts, and in clause 6 (1) provision is made for issuing regulations in this regard. Since such regulations have in fact already been issued and have been accepted and are being applied generally, but are ultra vires the Act according to the lawyers, the power of issuing them with retrospective effect is being granted in clause 6 (2).

The proper functioning of the Central Council is sometimes seriously hampered and slowed down as a result of the failure of medical schemes to comply with the provisions of the Act.

As yet there have been no prosecutions in terms of the provisions of the Act. Hon. members will find this interesting. The Council is hesitant to prosecute since it may eventually prejudice the ordinary members of medical schemes in that penalties will affect the finances of schemes, which may eventually affect the financial contributions of the ordinary members as well. However, in order to emphasize the importance of all the requirements of the Act and in order to bring them to the attention of all interested parties again, the amendment in respect of penalties is proposed in clause 5.

Clause 2 merely contains amendments which have become necessary as a result of the substitution of section 2 by Act 95 of 1969 and which were overlooked at that stage as a result of an oversight.

I may inform hon. members that the Bill is supported by the Central Council for Medical Schemes. It has also been submitted to the Medical Association, the Dental Association, the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes, the Federation of Medical Schemes, the Advisory Association of Medical Aid Schemes, and the National Association of Medical Benefit Schemes.

The Medical Association, the Dental Association and the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes are not in agreement with the provisions of clauses 1 and 3 (b), (c), (d) and (f) since the Associations do not wish to see any fragmentation of the body which represents medical schemes and they are of the opinion that the Central Council for Medical Schemes is not the appropriate body to decide disputes about the application of the tariff of fees. However, I am of the opinion—and I have devoted a great deal of attention to this— that all the proposed amendments, including those in regard to these two matters, are essential to the efficient functioning of the Central Council for Medical Schemes and the proper regulation of the functions connected with the administration of the Act.

Mr. Speaker, we will support the Second Reading of this Bill, but there is one clause here which I regret the hon. the Minister has had to bring before the House. The reason for this appears to be that there is at the moment some disunity amongst the medical aid schemes. This clause unfortunately might well encourage a further splintering up of those unified schemes which are in existence today. The hon. the Minister has told us that there are virtually three main bodies today, namely the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes and two other large groups of schemes. The way I see it is that the Minister should have done his best to keep the national body as the main body and that that should have been the body that would have negotiated with those persons who fix tariffs, and so on. The Minister may have great difficulty in getting the three main bodies which are left today to act in unison. They may break up again and may give him a headache when he comes to trying to fix tariffs or fees with the doctors. The doctors stand together unified and speak with one voice. There are those people in the medical profession who have opted out and who do not want to belong to medical schemes. They play no part in the negotiations whatsoever. The national body of medical schemes should be the negotiating body for all medical schemes and the Minister has seen fit this evening to suggest that because there happens to be disunity amongst these people, because they cannot bring their own house in order, he is prepared to negotiate separately with them and he mentions in the Bill that the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes will be no longer the only contracting and recognized body, but will be one of many. As long as there are more than two schemes which come together the Minister will recognize them as official bodies with whom to negotiate. I hope that the Minister will be able to carry out his duties and I am hoping that this will not lead to disruption within the medical aid schemes. I am also hoping that as a result of different people negotiating for the same thing, there will not be an increase in the present tariff of fees which the public may find difficult to meet. They will find difficulties, because if there is an increase in tariffs their subscriptions to medical aid schemes will increase. Perhaps we will hear more about this this evening.

I again want to say to the Minister that I do not know why he wants to penalize those people in the medical profession or those people who deal with the medical profession. The new section 40 of the principal Act, substituted by clause 5 of the Bill, means that if a medical practitioner who works under medical aid conditions does not send his accounts in, he can within three months of giving the service be charged under this new section. The penalties are rather extraordinary. A person who fails to comply with any provision of this Act “shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred rand or to imprisonment for a period of not exceeding twelve months”, and if he does it again, the punishment goes up to a fine not exceeding R1 000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years. I do not say that the provisions of this section will be executed, but a person could be punished in this way. It does not end there, and that is why I am perturbed at this clause. It means that a medical practitioner who is guilty of not sending out his accounts properly on two occasions can be called before the Medical Council and that disciplinary action can be taken against him. All this may happen because of this clause and it is quite possible that he can be suspended from practice. I think this punishment is very unfair. I wonder if the Minister will not be good enough to have another look at this clause. I am not suggesting to him that he should bring in an amendment now, but I want to ask him to tell us in his reply whether the doctors themselves are satisfied with this. He did say that it was laid before them, but I would like to know whether the implications were shown up at the time. If the doctors themselves are satisfied we have to abide by their decision, but if they have put up a case whereby this clause should be amended, then I ask the Minister to bring in an amendment during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister that in recent times a certain practice has unfortunately reared its head. This is that even before a remuneration commission is appointed by the Minister, certain officials of the medical aid schemes go to the newspapers and then slander the profession and blame it for the high medical costs. This mars relationships between the profession and the patient. I know the sub judice rule cannot be applied here, but I wonder whether something cannot be done to prevent these people from running to the newspapers and then marring relationships between the medical practitioners and the public.

Secondly, I just want to say that I am not very happy about this change from two years to three years. If, however, the hon. the Minister is satisfied that the medical associations are satisfied with it, I shall not argue further about it.

I do not feel happy either about clause 4, which amends section 32 of the principal Act. A new principle is being inserted here in the form of a penalty clause. A medical practitioner must now furnish an account within 30 days of the date of the rendering of a service; if not, he is guilty in terms of the provisions of the penalty clause as set out by the hon. member for Rosettenville. It is not clear to me when these 30 days expire and when a medical practitioner must send in his account. If, for example, he closes his books on the 25th of the month and a patient comes under treatment on the 20th of the month, must he send in an account on the 25th already in respect of those five days? The patient may be under his treatment for five or six weeks. If he does not send in an account in respect of those five days, but in fact from time to time, as he treats the patient over those six weeks, and several weeks pass after he should have sent in his account in terms of the Act, would he be punishable or not? As the Bill reads at present, it seems to me as if he would in fact be guilty in terms of the penalty clause and may be sent to gaol for 12 months or be fined R200. After serving his sentence, he comes back, starts practising again and a pregnant patient comes to see him. He treats that patient and she sees him once a month over a period of eight months. Must he send in his account every month in that case, or must he wait until after the confinement? Say, for example, the patient leaves before the confinement and the doctor is not aware of the fact that the patient has left and sends in his account after a month for the eight treatments he has given her, will he again be guilty of an offence in terms of the legislation as it reads at present? Then he may be goaled for two years, or be fined R1 000. I am mentioning these cases because I feel this should be stated more clearly. I do not think it is very clear at present, and I agree that the penalties prescribed here are very harsh. I am afraid that if it is going to remain like this, it may perhaps encourage the medical practitioners not to work under this legislation and that they will possibly opt out again. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister to pay attention to this matter and to make clear to the medical practitioners what the intention here is. I want to repeat that I am of the opinion that this penalty clause is rather harsh.

Furthermore, we see here that the medical practitioners or dentists are now being obliged to render their accounts at certain specific times. But the medical aid associations are not obliged to pay those accounts within a certain period. The new section 41 (1) (e), which is proposed by clause 6 of this Bill, reads as follows—

It is done by regulation. I hope the present Minister will be here for many years to come, but there may be another Minister in future who feels quite differently about the matter and who would then issue different regulations. Is it not possible to lay down a period in this legislation within which the medical schemes must pay their accounts? I can tell you, Sir, that there are some schemes which receive the full account from the medical practitioner and which pay only part of it, and not the full amount. Are they not obliged to pay the full amount instead of waiting until the following month or the month after that before paying the account which they have already received? For that reason I want to request the hon. the Minister to give attention to this clause. It is mainly this clause which bothers me in the entire legislation, and if the hon. the Minister would undertake to give attention to it, I would be very satisfied and very grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I do not belong to the trade union which so far has been debating this measure. I look at it from the consumer’s point of view. In the case of previous Bill which we have just dealt with I have fortunately not yet become a consumer but I have been a victim in the sense that I have had to pay accounts. In this case I am a consumer, and I feel that the consumer should also be entitled to express his views in regard to the issues which are raised here. I refer particularly to the question of the Remuneration Commission against the background of the ever-rising cost to the man in the street and particularly to the family man of subscriptions towards medical aid schemes, and against the background of restriction of benefits, the first payments which the member must make and the maximum limitations which are placed on the members of some medical aid schemes. I accept that these schemes operate and do their best to operate to the benefit of their members. But the fact of the matter is that as a result of the Remuneration Commission’s recommendations the contributions are continuously rising and there very often are limitation benefits. It means that the member of the scheme is facing ever-rising costs. Here we are accepting a measure which says that the Minister has no say at all. If the commission recommends an increase, it becomes an accomplished fact. There is no protection from the Minister, there is no protection from the Government and there is no protection from anyone; if the commission which the Minister has appointed says that the fees shall be raised, the Minister must—and we are amending it now to come into effect on the 1st January of the following year—approve of that increase.

Or decrease.

The hon. the Minister says “or decrease”.

Yes.

Don’t make me laugh !

You are still going to eat your words.

I hope I will. I have been paying to a medical aid scheme for a long time and I have never yet had a decrease. I hope this will happen, because it is going to be the happiest day of my life. Nevertheless the point is that the average contributor is paying ever-increasing fees. There may be a decrease and I hope there will be a decrease; in fact there are rumours that there will be one, and if that is so, fine. But if I think what I was paying ten years ago and what I am paying now …

What are you earning today?

The earnings do not matter. If your earnings go up beyond a certain figure you pay a higher subscription. Relatively, however, the average man who used to look on this as a protection often finds it a burden simply to pay his contribution. The limitations are such that very often the protection for which he is paying does not materialize when he strikes ill-fortune, against which he is trying to protect himself, because the maximum limits come into force and he is faced then with additional costs over and above the contribution. The last Bill we discussed dealt with dental fees. Most schemes have a limit. As soon as your bills exceed R70 or R80 a year in the case of one person, or R100 to R150 for a family, you are no longer covered. You only need one major dental treatment and your protection under the scheme has gone out of the window. One or two major dental treatments, one set of dentures, one major dental surgery and your protection is gone. The point I want to make is that I do recognize the right of the trade union, the medical people, to look after their interests. Worries have been expressed here that they may be adversely affected. I ask the Minister to remember that there are other people who are worried, and they are the people who face these ever-rising costs.

I am sorry, in addition, that this Bill does not go further with regard to the interchangeability of schemes. The hon. the Minister’s own CSMBA, the Government medical aid scheme, has regulations which often react very harshly on members. The hon. the Minister knows of a case which I raised with him, where a person who did not exercise an option because he was covered by another scheme, could not join the Government’s own scheme, when the other scheme fell away. The hon. the Minister says he is trying to encourage medical aid protection, but when it comes to practice, when it comes to a specific case where a man finds himself in the middle, having fallen between two schemes, the hon. the Minister closes the door and says “I am not prepared to let him join the Public Service scheme, because he did not opt at the right time”.

You can really talk a lot of nonsense.

No, Sir, I have all the correspondence. I have the Minister’s own letter to me in which he turned my representations down flat.

I will give you a reply to that.

We will raise it again on a future occasion.

I will answer you tonight.

Good. I say, Sir, let us not be “holier than thou” about this wonderful protection. I would like to see greater protection for the people who have to pay, the consumer who finally has to pay the costs and whom I believe we, as a country, should protect to a far greater extent against the fear of illness and of being financially crippled as a result of ill-health. I believe we have not gone nearly far enough in the coverage and protection which we as a government, as a state, give to the ordinary person against this fear.

You want a socialist scheme.

I do not want a socialist scheme, I want a national scheme which will give protection without all the fine print at the bottom of the contract which, when you come to make the claim, often invalidates that claim. We support these technical amendments, but I do not believe we are giving the people of South Africa the full protection which they need in the light of the growing cost of medicine and medical attention.

Mr. Speaker, one hears strange things in this House. This evening I heard one of the strangest things one can hear. An hon. member rose here who regards himself as the “victim” of some or other medical practitioner in Natal. I am sorry for him that he should be such a “victim”. But what surprises me most is that hon. members on that side who continually plead for protection by the courts and by a judge, come here this evening and say, through the mouth of the hon. member, that they are not at all satisfied with the protection provided by a judge; they rather want the protection of the Minister of Health. Just fancy that! Sir, I simply do not understand that.

It is true that medical costs are high. There is no doubt about it. Nobody has ever disputed it. For that very reason this Government appointed a commission as long ago as, I think, 1962, to investigate the high costs of medicine. They produced a bulky report, which eventually led to the introduction of this Bill, which creates the possibility of predetermined insurance for medical costs.

Surely the premium one has to pay on any insurance policy depends on the risk the insurance company has to take. If the hon. member for Durban Point wants to take out life insurance, I am very sure his premium is going to cost him a bit more if he does not reduce his weight a little. It is simply a fact that if one sets higher requirements, one has to pay more, and since this amending Bill proposes to reduce administrative costs by expediting payment and to eliminate dissatisfaction, it is a step in the right direction. I know that contributions to medical aid schemes will continue to place a heavy burden on people, but the fact that people may make provision beforehand for the day when illness strikes, does at least alleviate the burden to a certain extent. The hon. member for Durban Point has pleaded for a general scheme, presumably a compulsory one. His plea is that everyone should contribute towards such a scheme. He is pleading for socialism.

No, he did not.

Where did you suck that from?

Hon. members opposite are pleading for at least a tremendously large contribution from the State. I want to ask them merely to give a moment’s thought to all the things for which they have pleaded here this year and which would entail increased expenditure by the State. The hon. member for Durban Point can calculate for himself what contribution the State would have to make to the scheme for which he pleaded here. Sir, I leave it at that.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. members for Rosettenville and Geduld said here. As I interpret clause 5, a doctor is obliged to send out an account, and if he does not do so, he is fined. It seems to me this will also push up the costs to a certain extent. I do not want to say that there are a great many doctors who do not send accounts, but I think that we should pamper rather than fine those doctors who do not send out accounts. It seems to me that a change should be made in this regard. Therefore I should like to associate myself with the amendment suggested here.

In my opinion the proposed amendments do not affect the essence of the scheme. I think they will only contribute to better and smoother operation and the speedier settlement of accounts. Furthermore, I think it is absolutely essential that someone should make a final decision in respect of whether an account is in order, i.e. whether it is not excessive and whether it serves its purpose or not. I cannot imagine that any person or body is more suitable for that purpose than this very Central Council of Medical Schemes. I think that, on the whole, this amending Bill is acceptable to all and should contribute to the smoother operation of the entire scheme.

Mr. Speaker, as a consumer like the hon. member for Durban Point, I have been rather interested to hear from the hon. member for Fauresmith, who is a member of the trade union, that, should a doctor be penalized or punished for the non-rendition of an account, the penalty is to be passed on to the patient by way of increased medical fees. I hope that is not going to happen and I hope that he was only flippant in that regard this evening.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister one question which I believe …

He is never flippant. He is a serious fellow.

I trust that he will on reflection of what he has said, treat it more as a flippant than a serious remark. I want to raise with the hon. the Minister one of the problems which I find particularly with younger married persons who are members of medical aid schemes. I want to refer to the amendment to section 41, which deals with regulations. Clause 6 of this Bill provides—

I take it that that refers to the medical practitioner who has rendered service to a member of a medical aid scheme. I find that in certain schemes the member is required to pay the medical practitioner before he is entitled to a refund from the medical aid scheme. That applies in respect of certain schemes. I am sure the hon. the Minister will realize that it is all right for people who can afford it and who have the financial resources to lay out the medical charges and then to claim a refund. But it is a hardship, particularly to young married couples, to have to make their disbursement before they receive the refund from their medical aid scheme. That applies to a number of schemes, and I do hope that the hon. the Minister will ensure in the regulations which are now to be made, that this burden will not be placed on to a member of a medical aid scheme.

After all, a person who joins a scheme joins it in order that he might be relieved of the responsibilities and often the embarrassment which arises from having to meet medical accounts. On the terms which apply in certain schemes, that unfortunately is not achieved. Although he is contributing to the scheme, he is called upon to make the disbursement to the medical practitioner before he is entitled to a refund into his own pocket. I believe it applies mainly to those schemes which do not give 100 per cent cover. Those in respect of which a percentage cover applies only effect refunds after the payment has been made. I do hope the hon. the Minister can give an assurance in this regard. This responsibility which is still there despite membership, namely to find the cash to pay the bill before they get the refund, is a cause of concern to many. I will be grateful if the hon. the Minister would indicate to the House whether this amendment of the regulations will deal with this particular problem, which I believe is an unjust one under some of the medical schemes.

Mr. Speaker, let me say, in the first place, that I should like to associate myself with the statement by the hon. member for Fauresmith that the cost of being ill is high today. Let me also tell the hon. member for Durban Point immediately that he and his people are not more concerned about this than we on this side are. We are as concerned about it. The only difference is that we have taken positive, new steps to combat it.

That is not the solution.

Let me also say that the last thing we should do is to make a political issue of this matter. [Interjections.] I shall come to the hon. member for Durban Point just now. He said here with a pious face, “I am a consumer.” We can well say that he is a frighteningly big consumer. He pretends to have in mind steps which we fail to take, but which can be taken. I must say that I was flattered by him, for what did he say? He said that a judicial commission was not good enough, but that the one man in this world he trusted to keep the costs down was the Minister.

We can call the Minister to account.

No, that is the whole point. The hon. member does not want to call the Minister to account; he wants to gossip outside this House. Because we have appointed this commission, he can gossip about all the costs of living, etc., but he cannot gossip about medical costs, because he is co-responsible for them. This evening I want to repeat very clearly and in detail how these things work, so that our people may know once and for all. Previously there was no protection whatsoever against medical costs for any member of the public. There was no machinery or method for providing that protection. The schemes and the medical practitioners used to determine the tariffs by negotiation. If the negotiations failed, the doctors and dentists asked whatever they liked. In fact, there were years in which they could not see eye to eye, as hon. members know. Then we decided that things could no longer continue in that way. I want to ask any member in this House—all of you supported it—and any member of the public whether they can suggest to me a better method, a more correct and acceptable one, one which will be able to instal more confidence, than the one we have at present, and, if so, what that method is? A commission is appointed every three years. A judge, retaining his status as such, is the chairman. One of the members is a member of the medical profession. He is appointed by me from a panel which I get from the Medical Association. The other member is one who is chosen from a panel submitted to me by the medical schemes, in other words, the representatives of the public, the patients or “consumers”. It may even be Mr. Vause Raw.

Then you would get some lower fees.

That may be so. When it concerns dental fees, a dentist, who is also taken from a panel, is substituted for the medical doctor. The dentists sat just recently; I have their report in my office. The fees which are determined scientifically by them, are announced in a report in which the whole basis and method are set out for the world to read. The previous report was more than six inches thick. Did the hon. member for Durban Point give evidence before that commission? He did not. But now he comes here and is very concerned. He did not go to give evidence, and why did he not do so? They sat here on the other side of the street.

I do not have the knowledge. I am only the representative of people with problems.

There was an opportunity to give evidence. Hon. members may read on what basis the previous tariffs were determined. The hon. member can go and tell that commission that that basis is wrong. This report I have now, will again be made available to the public. The Judge and his assistants reviewed the fees on this basis. I want to ask any right-minded person whether the Minister should now be given the right to tamper with those tariffs submitted to him by that commission, to increase or decrease them.

If they are unreasonable.

Who is to determine whether they are unreasonable? Must the Minister do so? I now ask whether the Minister should have the right to determine, over and above the decision of the Judge and his assistants, whether the Judge is unreasonable? Is that what the hon. member wants?

Carry on.

The hon. member just wants to carry on gossiping if the Minister has the right and then to say that the Minister did not do his duty. I want to state here candidly this evening that no Minister, neither I myself nor any future Minister or Government, will be capable of doing better work than a judicial commission such as this. This evening I want to extend an invitation to hon. members opposite and to the public that if they can offer me a better method of determining a reasonable tariff for medical or dental services, they should do so. That commission deals with about 7 000 items and I say without any fear of contradiction that every hon. member in this House, on whatever side he may be sitting, can go to the public and tell them with an open mind that if there are any tariffs in South Africa that is determined in a fair and an irreproachable way, and in a way in which they can have confidence, it is these medical and dental tariffs since 1969. I am grateful to hon. members on the opposite side for having supported this legislation. I think about this matter night and day, but I still have not been able to think of a better method. However, I am not prepared to take the power out of the hands of a judicial commission and to place it in the hands of other people, who, to my mind, do not possess the competence of those people.

I now want to mention a second point with reference to what the hon. member for Durban Point said here, and that is that he should not stir up suspicion against medical schemes. We have a system in South Africa today which is not 100 per cent perfect, but which is as good as you can get, i.e. health insurance in terms of which 80 per cent or more of our people are covered, and which has not yet turned South Africa into a socialist state. We must not stir up suspicion. We should rather point out the good and important points of medical schemes. The hon. member scornfully referred to “trade unions”. These are the only things he knows, but there is no such thing as “trade unions” among medical doctors and dentists. We have professional associations. He will not know what that is; I shall tell him when we are outside this House. I do not think it does the relations between doctor and patient any good to speak in this way about things of which he knows nothing.

Another point I want to mention, and this is the only one I want to mention in regard to medical schemes, and which I also consider to be the salient one in respect of this legislation, is the fact that the Act which we passed five years ago, now provides for the first time that when a person retires he remains a member of the scheme concerned. In other words, within the next 10 or 20 years we are going to find the situation that the indigent person whom the State must look after today through its district surgeons and others, will no longer be an indigent person as far as medical and dental services are concerned. He will be covered by his own scheme for which he will pay during his working life. I think this will create a wonderful situation, for our aged as well. These are the fine points of the scheme that I want to point out to the hon. member.

There are many good schemes, but there are also schemes which are misleading.

There are no schemes which are misleading, because every scheme has to be registered with the Central Council. A misleading element may arise from the fact that the hon. member does not understand what he reads. However, there is no scheme which may mislead a member, and if the hon. member tells me of one which misleads a member, I shall see to it that the Central Council takes immediate action against it.

The hon. member for Geduld voiced his concern here about clause 5, which proposes to substitute a new section 40 for section 40 of the principal Act. The new section 40 reads as follows :

This section bothered me too, and I must say I am still not quite happy about it at this stage. The legal people tell me that this does not relate to medical doctors and dentists. They say that the words “any person” relate to the person in whose name the medical scheme is registered, because a medical scheme must be a corporate body. That is what the legal people tell me. The second point is that the Medical Association raised no objection to this clause. It is not the intention here that medical practitioners should be penalized. The hon. member for Fauresmith is right. We really must not be annoyed with the person who does not send in an account. We must not penalize him. I then went further and was prepared to move in the Committee Stage that medical doctors and dentists should be specifically excluded from this section, if there is any doubt. The rules of the House unfortunately do not allow this. The only way in which we would be able to do this, would be to withdraw the Bill and to introduce a new one.

What about an instruction?

No, apparently we cannot do it in that way either. I now want to suggest that, since some of our legal people say that this does not relate to medical doctors and dentists and since it is not the intention that this should be the case, we should pass it in this form in view of the practical problems we have as a result of the procedure here in Parliament. If it appears that medical practitioners are prosecuted in terms of this section for not rendering accounts within a month and for not sending reminders within four months, I undertake to put this right. In addition, I want to say that the penalizing of the medical practitioners is in any case to be found in a different aspect of this Bill, i.e. that if the four months have expired and he has not sent the account and has not followed the necessary procedure, he forfeits the assurance that the scheme will guarantee his money. In other words, he is penalized in a different way.

I think it is dangerous to leave it as it is.

Well, I cannot change it. That is my problem.

The hon. member for Green Point raised a point in regard to the payment of a bill and said that he was especially worried about the young couple. However, it could apply to anybody. In other words, his fear is that people might not have the money to first pay the doctor and then be refunded by the scheme. That fear does not exist. May I point out to the hon. member that regulation 8 (1) reads as follows—

The supplier is the doctor—

In other words, if the account is rendered in accordance with the regulation, the scheme shall pay directly to the doctor.

Is that a new provision?

No; the date is 11th September, 1970.

I will give you the name of one fund which does not …

That may be so, but it is not in accordance with the regulations.

The insurance companies did that once.

Let me just go further. If for instance, it happens to be a scheme where only 80 per cent is paid, the scheme must recover that money from the individual.

The 20 percent of course.

Yes. We have now gone further. In clause 6 we are giving this regulation the effect of law; that is what we are doing here. This regulation will in future be part of the Act and not be a regulation any more. I hope that satisfies the hon. member.

Yes, that satisfies me.

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised the point of the fragmentation of the different associations. I am sorry about that; I have done my best to bring them together, and I have had some success. The Federation and the Advisory Association have now come together. I have assisted them in making that decision. They have seen me in that regard some months ago and I was glad to receive a telegram from them a week later conveying the message that they have come together. However, the practical situation is that the number of members of the National Association of Medical Aid Schemes is 226 954. The number of members of the Federation and the Advisory Association totals 255 742. The number of dependants of Namas is 346 148 and the number of dependants of the other two totals 405 006. Therefore the hon. member will see that I could not possibly in the legislation before the House exclude the Federation and the Advisory Association and not recognize them—at least they are not being recognized now as such but they could be recognized as separate entities— when they have a bigger membership than the National Association. I cannot see that this fragmentation will in any way ever affect the cost of medicine and the cost of medical services. I am sure that this can never happen because in what way can it possibly be affected? The Association is merely a representative body of these schemes; as a matter of fact I would prefer them to give evidence before the commission in more than one instance, because the evidence emanating from these bodies would be evidence serving to keep the cost of medicine down and not to push it up.

Will they compete against one another to bring it down?

No, I do not think that they can compete against one another, because the Association is not there for competition. It is merely there to represent them, as the hon. member knows. If there is one body, it will be welcomed, but I think it is only wise and proper that we should make provision in the Bill that if there is more than one body, which is the de facto situation at present, both of them could be recognized. I may tell the hon. member that I have done my best. When I had to appoint the commission last year, I made it quite clear to Namas that I could not accept, even if it stood in the Bill—perhaps it was illegal; I do not care because we have to be practical about it—the opinion of one scheme only. I told them they represented one half of the people only and the others the other half and they should try to get together and make a recommendation to me for appointment to the commission. This they did. So we have had success as far as that is concerned. If in future they cannot find one another, the practical situation will be that there will be no problem at all for the Minister to appoint this judicial commission, because all of them can make representations to me. To the best of my knowledge and on the information that I have at that stage, I will appoint an individual from those suggested to me. I think he will be best to represent the consumers. At that stage it might well be the hon. member for Durban Point. In this last instance it was the previous chairman of the Civil Service Medical Benefit Association, Dr. Enslin.

I must come back to the hon. member for Durban Point, because he said that action by the Minister had made it impossible for this particular friend of his …

A constituent.

… or a constituent of his, to become a member of, as he called it, the Government Medical Scheme. That is not true. It is not a Government scheme. The hon. member knows it. I have no say in that association at all, nor has the Prime Minister or the Cabinet. He knows it, but he wants to create the impression that the Government is not doing its job, that the Government is guilty of something in that it could have handled this in a different way.

The hon. member knows as well as I do that the medical scheme for civil servants is entirely run by the civil servants themselves.

The administration of it, yes.

And the regulations and the rules—everything.

The hon. member was specifically referring to the regulations debarring his constituent from becoming a member of that association. It is not the responsibility of the Government. We have no say in that, and we do not want to have any say. The civil servants are running their medical scheme quite well, and we are happy with it. All the Government does at this stage is to contribute to that scheme. For every rand contributed by the civil servants, the Government contributes an amount of R1-50.

You have no say at all?

None whatever. Would the hon. member like the Government to have a say in it?

Are you satisfied with the case I outlined?

The case outlined to me raises a completely different point, and that is whether there should be interchangeability between schemes. I am now talking about the scheme for civil servants. The hon. member said in this House in clear-cut words that it was the fault of the Government that there is no interchangeability, that it is because of the Government’s action that the rules are such. I am saying to the hon. member that there is no truth in that whatsoever.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that a civil servant who had not opted at the correct time, would have to resign his job in order to get protection under the Civil Servants’ Medical Benefit Association?

If the hon member brings the case to me, I will look into it.

I have taken it to you. You turned me down flat.

I did not turn the hon. member down, I pointed out to him where the fault lay, because I have no powers whatever in that matter, and I am not going to take them, for the following reason.

*If I take those powers, the hon. member can go and gossip in Durban again. His problem this evening is that he cannot go and gossip about any aspect of medical costs or about the administration of medical schemes or about the public servants’ medical benefit association. And yet he does so. He comes to this House and makes a statement in which there is not a grain of truth, and he knows it just as well as you and I do, Sir.

I think you should withdraw that, you know.

Yes very well, I know it is unparliamentary. I may not say that the hon. member knew that there was not a grain of truth in it. Sir, I and all of us, except the hon. member, know that there is not a grain of truth in it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.