Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal with only one aspect. It is a matter which I raised during the Second Reading and which the hon. the Deputy Minister neatly sidestepped. I do not mind the hon. the Deputy Minister having a crack at me occasionally, but when he sidesteps an issue and then has a crack at me, I cannot let it go by. I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether it was not so that he and the Minister of Transport had committed South Africa and this House in practice if not in theory to the development of this harbour before it had scientific evidence upon which to base its decision. In his reply the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about the line from Vryheid to Empangeni being a dual-purpose line which in any case, if the harbour was not built, could be used to relieve the strain on the Durban-Rand line. I accept that, of course. That is so; there is no argument about that. But as usual he only went halfway. He did not tell us about the line from Empangeni to Richard’s Bay which, if no harbour was to be built, would be serving one factory. Does he always build R10 million railway lines to serve a swamp and one factory? In practice, there was a commitment to this harbour, and my point was that the CSIR Report, according to the Railway and Harbour Board’s own report to this House, was submitted in September last year. But when the decision was taken there had been, I submit, no preliminary favourable reports. I made the specific point that a number of rumours had been floating around and suggested that those rumours had come from the initial adverse scientific reaction from the CSIR. Again the hon the Deputy Minister sidestepped that; he did not give us an answer. I now ask him this direct question : Was the first response of the CSIR—not the official report—an unfavourable one; did it place any question marks after the project and secondly, did the department have any positive scientific or engineering report before it when the decision to commit the Government to Richard’s Bay Harbour was initially taken? Sir, these are simple straightforward questions. I would now like to see the hon. the Deputy Minister egg-dance his way over these two simple, straightforward questions.

For the rest, Sir, we on this side of the House, as I said at the Second Reading accept this measure. The Minister has given an assurance that the effect on Durban Harbour has been carefully considered and we accept that. I have confidence in this country because I believe that under the new Government that we will soon have, we will need Durban and Richard’s Bay and probably another harbour.

Mr. Speaker …

Let us hear what you have to say now.

The hon member will hear more than he expects The hon. member for Durban Point wants to allege that we confronted South Africa and this Parliament with an accomplished fact in regard to the construction of this harbour.

Committed them.

He said we had committed South Africa. Surely he knows that his own leader in Natal said in this House yesterday that the Minister had announced the development of this harbour as far back as 1966 and that it was no political matter as it was a harbour for South Africa. In other words, the Minister and the Government concealed nothing They told South Africa as far back as 1966 that a new harbour was going to be built there and they took further steps as well; they froze that whole area so that no land speculation would take place. Therefore the Minister took South Africa completely into his confidence. But now the hon. member links the matter to the CSIR’s report and alleges that the first report in regard to the question of how the harbour was to be built, was not favourable. Surely, Sir, we are no longer living in the days of the oxwagon.

Who’s talking!

The Railways and its engineers believed that all problems in regard to the construction of the harbour could be overcome, and they told the CSIR:“We see these problems you have mentioned, but now we want you to plan a harbour for us with due regard to these problems.”

Therefore there were problems.

There are always problems.

That hon. member is a problem too.

The hon. member is the biggest problem the United Party has at the moment. The engineers of the Railways conducted a preliminary investigation into the feasibility of constructing a harbour there, and they found that a harbour could in fact be constructed there. It was only a question of exactly where and how it should be built. Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member that my reply yesterday was perfectly correct. The railway line which was constructed from Vryheid to Empangeni, was constructed in terms of a Railway Act passed by this Parliament. This Parliament knew at the time what it was agreeing to, i.e. the construction of an operating line. The railway line constructed from Empangeni to the Alusaf foundries, was also agreed to by this Parliament, and in that case too, Parliament knew what it was agreeing to. Parliament knew at the time that the possibility existed that the line was to be extended. The questions the hon. member has just asked, should have been asked here in Parliament at that time; he should have asked then, “Why are you constructing such a service railway line only as far as that factory?” Parliament was aware of all the facts at that time, and the hon. member should not come forward and suggest here now that it is necessary for me to do an egg dance. Parliament—not the Minister—agreed to the construction of that railway line in its various stages. Does the hon. member think Parliament was so stupid as to think that the railway line would be constructed only as far as the foundry?

† Mr. Speaker, I want to place on record the fact that in this whole development we also took the leader of the United Party in Natal into our confidence. He went there with the hon. the Minister. Another fact that I want to place on record in connection with that whole development is this: There is no man in the whole of South Africa who knows more about Northern Zululand and Northern Natal than Douglas Mitchell. There is no man who has the development of that part more at heart than the hon. member for South Coast. I may add, too, that you could find no better host than the hon. member who accompanied us on this visit.

*I was invited there by this courteous gentleman who accompanied me and the hon. the Minister to that area in order to show us what potential that area had. In addition, I want to thank the hon. member for the interest which he, as a nature lover, showed in the project as a whole from the point of view of the preservation of nature. He knew as far back as 1966 that a new harbour was going to be constructed. When the construction of the railway line from Empangeni to the foundry had been agreed to, he knew that a harbour was going to be constructed, and I am sorry that when the hon. member for Durban Point agreed to that Act, he did not realise it as well, and has discovered it only now.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to repeat after due consideration the assurance I asked for in the Second Reading debate in regard to the compulsory recovery of any overpaid amount in respect of salaries or wages. The question is whether it is possible for an exception to be made in special cases, or whether it is absolutely compulsory for any overpaid amount in respect of wages or salaries to be recovered? Is there any alternative in exceptional cases?

I should like to help the hon. member: I repeat that the right of appeal to the Minister and to the Railways Board does not fall away; it continues to exist.

In that case, may the Minister contravene the Act by not recovering an overpaid amount in spite of the fact that the Act provides that he must recover it?

The right of appeal gives him that right.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says the Minister may deal with such an exceptional case when an appeal is lodged. However, the Bill provides specifically that it entitles the Administration to waive its rights in respect of a person who is still in the Service.

The right is granted to him; he is not compelled.

It provides that it must be done. Here it is: “ … to recover … any amount which was overpaid during the twelve months immediately preceding the aforementioned date”. It is contained in paragraph 2 (b) on page 5. Therefore it is very clear that it must be done; it must be recovered. The English version reads “… entitle the Administration to waive, in respect of a person who is still in the Service, the right to recover …”.

It is a right; it does not say “shall”.

It continues to say that nothing contained in subsection (1) shall be deemed to (a) entitle the Administration to recover … more than one year and (b) entitle the Administration to waive, etc. So, in other words, nothing in this shall entitle it to waive. That is the crux of it. The English version reads “Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall be deemed”, and then (a) deals with the recovery for a year, and (b) says “ … to entitle the Administration to waive”. The Afrikaans version reads “die bepalings van subartikel (1) word nie geag nie—”, which is followed by (a) and (b).

The hon. member’s interpretation of the clause is perfectly correct, but I have already told him that the right of appeal is not being removed by this, and I merely want to point out that there are several cases in which, when an appeal is made to the Minister through the Railways Board, a decision may be taken to make an ex gratia payment, for which this provision does leave the way clear.

Yes, ex gratia, but is that not in conflict with the Act?

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a)cannot derive sufficient benefit from the instruction normally provided in the ordinary course of education; or
2. (b) requires special education in order to facilitate his adaptation to the community; or
3. (c) should not attend an ordinary school, because such attendance may be harmful to himself or to the other pupils in such class;(xi);

We on this side of the House wish to express our gratification to the hon. the Minister for bringing forward this particular amendment. It will be recollected that in the previous Bill this side of the House suggested that the term “deviate child” should not appear in the definition and that the word “handicapped child” has a better connotation. We appreciate the gesture of the Minister in accepting our suggestion and putting it forward in this Bill.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 :

In clause 3 provision is made for the establishment and maintenance of State schools, and here I should like to move the following amendment—

In view of what happened during the Committee Stage of the Coloured Persons in South-West Africa Education Bill, when the hon. the Minister did not at that stage want to accept an amendment of ours, for he said we were talking about school boards and there were no school boards, I just want to draw his attention to the fact that in this amendment we are simply using the words as they stand in section 34, and we say that the Minister may at any time, after consultation with the board, committee or other body established in terms of section 34 (1) close or disestablish any school or any school clinic or other accessories used in connection with a school. On that previous occasion I told the hon. the Minister that it was absolutely essential that local organisations and bodies should be consulted in this case, because, as we put it, the Administration of South-West Africa is now being divested of control. At that stage the hon. the Minister admitted that it was desirable that negotiations should take place. Sir, if it is desirable, then it is also desirable that it should be stated in the legislation. Particularly since the hon. the Minister intimated that he would remedy the matter in respect of that legislation in the Other Place, I wonder now whether he can tell us at this stage whether he will accept my amendment.

This amendment of the hon. member for Durban Central envisages, of course, a board or committee or body which consists of parents. In my opinion it is unnecessary to insert the proposed words, In my opinion it is in fact quite superfluous. The Minister is there to act in the interests of those people, and he will therefore determine when a change is necessary. Now the hon. member wants the Minister to be bound. I can only say that as far as I know the situation in a province like Natal, the school advisory boards there do not have so much say that their recommendations need bind the Director. Now the hon. member wants to give those parents of school-going children a greater right than is given even to parents in the province of Natal. I think it is quite superfluous, at this stage at least.

In this connection I want to gather the threads together well. I said, and I adhere to it, that one does not merely close a school. The day one closes a school there have for a long time been various considerations which gave rise to it. You have already received reports from the inspector on that circuit. It has already been discussed thoroughly from many sides and many angles. By that time probably it would also have been raised and discussed by that local parents’ committee for which provision is being made, and on the regional board for which we are making provision. These things are not done lightly. For that reason I said that it is really unnecessary, because it will be done de facto in all cases, and you cannot do it in any other way. I also pointed out that the hon. members opposite, who are so terribly concerned now, do not do this kind of thing in Natal. In Natal they simply close schools from the head office. The central control there is a dictatorship in the field of education in Natal. They close schools, but now they insist that I should write this provision into the Bill. I want to tell the hon. member for Koedoespoort that I agree with him, but I shall nevertheless do it, and that for one single reason, which I regard as being a good one, and that is that this is the situation today under the South-West Africa Ordinance in respect of White education. I am not prepared to do anything in regard to the education of Coloured persons, Basters and Namas in South-West Africa which will place those people in a worse regard to White education. For that reason I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the hon. the Minister’s amendment will have precisely the same effect as the one I moved, and consequently I am prepared to withdraw, with the leave of the Committee, the amendment which I moved.

However, I must draw the attention of this Committee to one point. The hon. the Minister tried to draw a comparison between this set-up, and the position as we find it in Natal. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in Natal, control over education is vested in a provincial council. The provincial council consists of representatives elected by the voters of Natal, among whom there are parents as well. Negotiation does in fact take place in the sense the voters have direct control.

That is a weak argument. [Interjections.]

In this case, however, we are dealing with a group of people who have no direct share in the control. The only share which they will have, they obtain as a result of these committees which are appointed. That is why I said that it was of the utmost importance that the hon. the Minister should accept this principle. This would be the only way in which the Baster community could in fact be recognized and would play a part. Consequently it was essential that the hon the Minister should accept this. For the reasons which I advanced, I feel that it is essential that consultations should take place. No comparison with another province can be drawn in this case.

Amendment proposed by Mr. P A Pyper, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of Rehoboth Affairs put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 15 :

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I moved a similar amendment when the Committee Stage of the Coloured Persons in South-West Africa Education Bill was being dealt with, and I think that the hon. the Minister has at this stage already had an opportunity of giving this matter some further thought. I really hope that he will accept my amendment. We are dealing here with a matter of principle, and as I explained on a previous occasion it is of the greatest importance that we should not discriminate in our legislation at this stage against married women by excluding them from the benefits which result from permanent employment.

I know the hon. the Minister has argued previously that he can in fact employ married women in special circumstances. The point is, however, that this should not only be done under special circumstances, but that it is in the interests of education that it should be possible for every married woman who wants to teach to be appointed in a permanent capacity. If the hon. the Minister maintains that this can be done under special circumstances, I should like to hear under what circumstances it is not in the interests of education that our married women be appointed in a permanent capacity. Here it is being specially provided that under certain circumstances, if it is deemed to be in the interests of education, such a woman may be appointed in a permanent capacity. I want to ask him under what circumstances it is not in the interests of education that a married woman be appointed in a permanant capacity.

Mr. Chairman, I really do not know how the hon. the Minister can accept this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Florida. The question of married women affects not only this matter, in fact, it affects the entire educational system of the Whites as well as that of these groups for whom provision is now being made. What the hon. member for Florida would in fact be achieving, if the hon. the Minister were to accept his amendment, would be that a teaching career as such would be made less attractive for those who might enter this profession. If it could be possible to appoint a married woman in a permanent capacity we would have constant competition between the young teachers who have just left college and have no experience, and the married women.

But what about the Transvaal?

The result is that the situation would arise where the number of student teachers will decline. This would be specially true in the case of the race groups we are dealing with here and for whom we want to create a future in education, so that they can serve their own people

. If those people know that the road head, as it were, could be blocked by married women appointed in a permanent capacity, we would be thwarting the whole object of the education for these people, the fact of the matter is after all that in places where such a need does exist, and there are no applicants who qualify—in other words, unmarried women—married women do in fact have free access to the teaching profession, and they are being employed, and sometimes their appointment is renewed, although this is on a temporary basis. I do not think we can accept this amendment and at the same time be of the opinion that we are creating a new field of endeavour for this population group for which provision is being made here.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the hon. the Minister’s amendment in which he proposes to insert the words : “… who is not a South African citizen.” I want to express our gratification that he has considered the points that we made during the discussion on the previous Bill and accepted that this particular omission will in effect be an improvement.

Then I want to support my hon. colleague from Florida in his appeal in regard to the treatment of married women teachers. I listened with interest and care to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down in which he indicated that he could not see his way open to support the hon. member for Florida. But the point I think we have to bear in mind is that in the teaching profession in any race throughout the Republic and South-West Africa, it is unlikely that we will ever attain a stage in the foreseeable future, where we will have a surplus of teachers. As long as we have this shortage of teachers, I believe, it is of the utmost importance that every encouragement should be given to those who, although they may be married, have proved themselves over the years, and that they should not suffer any form of discrimination whatsoever. I believe that until this happy Nirvana is reached and we have a surplus of teachers, it is necessary for us to legislate to encourage married teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to reply to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Tygervallei. He gave us no explanation of why the Coloured race group should be a special case. We need not argue here over what could possibly happen in hypothetical cases. We have the case in the Transvaal and in Natal where married women are already being employed in a permanent capacity.

Under express conditions.

What conditions?

Semi-permanent.

This is most certainly not the case in Natal, and in the Transvaal as well they are also, as a rule, all employed in a permanent capacity. This has not resulted in the teaching profession becoming less attractive. On the contrary; it is becoming more attractive for these people. Surely education is not a stagnant profession, and one which is not expanding. As the population continues to expand, as the numbers of people continue to increase, as the community expands, so the teaching profession also expands. We will therefore not find ourselves in the position where married women block the advancement of younger women.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out that in terms of this clause as it now stands I have the right to appoint a married woman in a permanent capacity if I deem it to be desirable in the interests of the education of that specific race group.

What about the question I asked you?

You put so many questions to me, and I am not prepared this morning to start a general discussion here on married women in the teaching profession. This is an educational matter and I am not prepared to argue about it this morning. There are many points in its favour and there are also many points that mitigate against it. I said that I shall deal with this Bill in the spirit that I shall not discriminate against the Coloured group, or the Baster group, or the Namas. So far I have borne this in mind. Hon. members on that side of the House, the Opposition as a whole, who are now putting forward such earnest pleas from all sides, are asking me now to discriminate through this Bill against the White women teachers in South-West Africa. That is what I am now being asked to do, viz. to write into this legislation a provision which is not to be found in the legislation dealing with White education in South-West Africa. I am under no circumstances prepared to do so, and I am therefore not prepared to accept this amendment. I shall use my discretion, as I am empowered to do by the legislation, in regard to the appointment of married women. I have already said that where a person is an invalid, for example, or where there are other circumstances where the woman will be able to give her full-time attention to the matter, or if she is not a young woman who will have to rear a family, and where it is in the interests of education, I shall appoint such a woman in terms of the powers which I have. But at this stage I am not prepared to create a different dispensation for Baster education in South-West Africa to what there is for White education there.

Question put : That paragraph (d) of subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided :

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

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N.Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. J. J. M. Stephens dropped.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Rehoboth Affairs put and agreed to.

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

Clause 18:

This amendment deals with clause 18 (2),which reads at present—

The clause goes on—

During the discussion of this particular clause in a previous Bill it was pointed out that conditions of hardship could arise, for instance, where people were entitled to undertake genuine extra-mural activities by which they could supplement their in come. May I make it quite clear that we on this side of the House do not believe time activities of teachers in the employ of the Minister’s department. The hon. the Minister himself made a very good point when he replied to my hon, colleague from Wynberg and indicated that there were occasions where teachers wrote articles for various periodicals in their own hours as a hobby and as a means of supplementing their income. He indicated that he felt that, under such circumstances, if an approach were made to the hon. the Minister there would be no difficulty in granting permission to do this. As I read this clause, it is obligatory, whereas our amendment would make the position permissive.

I believe that our amendment would give the hon. the Minister the right, under those circumstances, to grant some form of exemption. As I see the position at present, the hon. the Minister has no power in terms of this clause. If he has power in terms of some other clause or Act whereby he can grant permission in apparent contradiction to a Statute, I would be very pleased if he would give me the reference to this. I suggest that, in terms of this amendment, the hon. the Minister, to whom sole discretion will be left, will have the power to use that discretion. On that basis, I ask the hon. the Minister to give sympathetic consideration to accepting the amendment which we on this side of the House move.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry but I cannot accept this amendment. The position is that I do have the right to grant exemption or permission in this regard. It is not a right I will exercise personally, because naturally I will delegate it to officers of my department as far as these things are being done. There will be no delay. Very speedy, if not immediate, consent will be given for an individual to take on remunerative work outside his teaching profession. In that case there is no obligation on the teacher concerned to pay the amount into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. However, where the individual’s activities are in doubt and he cannot obtain permission, the clause should naturally read “he shall” pay into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If the clause under these circumstances were to read “he may”, he would still be the boss; where would I come in? So, naturally, on that score the clause cannot be amended as suggested. I think there will be no trouble whatsoever and that this matter will be administratively handled in a very satisfactory way to the full satisfaction of both the department and all the teachers in South-West Africa. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to what he said. He has indicated that, although the term will be specifically “shall”, no problem will arise, whereas, if the word “may” were used, it would leave the option with the teacher concerned. Do the words that follow, i.e. “the Minister of Finance may recover it from him by legal proceedings”, not cover this aspect in any case? If the person concerned is guilty of what appears to be a contravention of this particular clause and refuses to pay, the Minister of Finance would still have the legal power to recover.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could explain something else to us. Suppose a person, as the hon. the Minister indicated, had written articles for a publication and received payment for them before he obtained permission from the Minister. The problem we have is whether in that case he will simply have to pay over the money. In other words, the Minister has no power to give permission then, and that the amount the person has received at that stage has to be paid in. Does the legislation read in that way that he cannot in that case make an exception?

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 19:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to move as amendments—

I should like to point out that as far as the first part of my amendment is concerned, it deals with transfers of staff, and the question of the secondment of staff. In the case of transfer there is quite adequate protection, but in the case of the secondment of a staff member, I think that the consent of such person will in fact have to be obtained, particularly since circumstances could lead to a person’s being seconded “temporarily” (tydelik afgestaan word) and that that temporary period is in fact an unlimited one; in actual fact, this then becomes a permanent transfer. I feel that such person’s consent should be obtained, particularly since it could lead to a reduction in his pensionable earnings.

I come now to the last part of my amendment. Subsection (4) (a) provides that a person, upon the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, may be transferred in any other capacity, but it may happen without his consent. In contrast to that we see, in terms of paragraph (b), that the consent of such person does in fact have to be obtained if he is transferred to the service of the government of any other country, or of any other person. I think that the consent of a person should be obtained, particularly in view of the fact that he may be transferred in another capacity. Basically we are dealing with teachers, but even in respect of a teacher transferred in another capacity within the Department of Coloured Affairs, I think that it is no more than right that he should at least give his consent first.

Mr. Chairman, at this stage, in any case, I do not accept the hon. member’s amendment. The only point to which I still want to give my attention is in regard to that part of the hon. member’s amendment in which he wants the words “and with such person’s consent” in subsection (4) (a), after the word “Commission”. The reason why I should like to go into this a little further is as a result of the words “in any other capacity”. The person is there as a teacher. I know teachers who are devoted heart and soul to teaching. I shall have to go into this to find out what considerations applied here, and why the words “in any other capacity” were inserted. There may be a good reason for this, which will allay completely the fears both of the hon. member for Durban Central and myself, and which will consequently make the clause as it now stands acceptable to us. But at present this is the only aspect in respect of which I shall make further inquiries. I may then consider inserting the hon. member’s proposed words after the word“Commission” in the Other Place. I am not committing myself finally; I shall reconsider the position and go into the matter further. At this stage I cannot therefore accept the hon. member’s amendments.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 21 :

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The first part of this amendment deals with the word “ontslaan” in the Afrikaans text, and the words “be discharged” in the English text. I do not think that in this context “discharge” is the correct word. It sounds very strange to me that it can be said that a person should “be discharged on account of ill-health”. When one uses the word “discharge” one always thinks that that person was guilty of misconduct. Consequently I think that it should rather be said that “the service of”such a person should be “terminated”.

This is more in the spirit of what is actually meant. If one retires on pension, one’s service is terminated; you are not “discharged” because you retire on pension. It is not said: “You are discharged, because you have reached retiring age.”

In addition, I want to ensure that the hon. the Minister is able to decide that such a person’s service need not necessarily be terminated, or that he need not be dismissed or discharged as a result of the various reasons mentioned here. Reasons which are given here include, inter alia, if a person married, or if a post, on account of the rearrangement of the staff of the school, no longer exists. With this I now want to enable the hon. the Minister to transfer such a person. The moment a person is discharged from the Public Service his services are terminated. He then loses many of the privileges he had, for example his pension privileges. Even should such a person subsequently be reemployed, he has already lost a great deal. Through the insertion of these words which I proposed, it is being made possible for the Minister to transfer such a person. This would give teachers a considerable measure of protection.

I then come to my amendment in line 51, where I propose that, in subsection (1)’ (e), the words, “after an inquiry by the Public Service Commission”, be inserted after the word “Minister”. I do not think that the matter can be left solely to the opinion of the Minister, and I think that this matter should be brought into line with the usual practice in the Public Service. When a post is abolished or when a person is discharged because, in the opinion of the Minister, efficiency or economization at the school in question will be furthered, I think that this should take place after an investigation by the Public Service Commission. I think that it is the practice in other State departments that when a person is discharged in this way, the matter is at least investigated by the Public Service Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Here we again have a case of discrimination against a woman who marries. I hope that the fact that the hon. the Minister did not want to accept the previous amendment will not prevent him from accepting this amendment, for I believe that we are dealing here with a further matter of principle. We are dealing here with a person who already has a vested interest. This is a person who is already permanently in the service. She marries, and as a result of that she is discharged. Sir, it really sounds terribly harsh to say that someone should be discharged from permanent service because she marries. The last time I raised this matter, the hon. the Minister said that there might be merit in my proposal. I hope that this is still his opinion and that he will be able at this stage to accept this amendment. I mentioned last time that in reality such a principle was in conflict with the principles contained in our common law in respect of the protection of marriage. It is in other words completely in conflict with our common law as it exists at present.

†I should like to put an interesting point to the hon. the Minister in this regard. The policy point on which the common law in this regard is based, is that in a will it is stated that if anybody is discriminated against on account of his or her marriage, or their getting married or being married, it is against public policy to allow such a clause to be valid. But now the Minister, who dictates public policy, goes against the doctrine of public policy. I am not saying, of course, that he is debarred from doing so. I do say, however, that in this instance we should keep in line with a very good and old principle of Roman-Dutch law, namely that we should not discriminate, certainly not in this fashion, against people who are going to be married.

Sir, I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Florida. I have already given my reasons. What the Opposition is advocating here is that I should discriminate against White education in South-West Africa, which I am not prepared to do. As far as my information extends, the position is that if a White woman there marries, then she does not have this privilege which I am now being asked to write into the legislation for Basters. I have already furnished hon. members with my reply, and we need not argue any further about this. As far as the word “discharge” is concerned, I just want to say that I cannot change it. If it should be changed one day throughout the Public Service, that is another matter. The word “discharge” is used throughout when a person retires owing to his having reached the age limit. I can mention the case here of a former Controller and Auditor-General, the highest official in the employ of the State. When he retired, the greatest tribute was paid to him for the wonderful work he had done for the country, but upon reaching the age limit he was “discharged” from the service of the State. This is customary terminology, and for that reason I am retaining it here; I am not going to take the lead in introducing new terminology in this Bill. If the Public Service Commission takes the lead in this regard one day, then I may be prepared to follow its example.

The hon. member for Durban Central wants us to call in the Public Service Commission when we want to discharge a person from a State school. Sir, that is simply not done. They do not do it in Natal, and the Cape Province does not do it here. One has one’s entire provincial set-up. We have in this Bill an entire series of provisions which stipulate what one has to do if one takes steps against teachers; what rights one has; how one has to set about doing things, and what rights they have in order to defend themselves. We are now being asked to call in the Public Service Commission here, although this is not being done anywhere else, and that is why I am not prepared to accept either of the two amendments. What I will in fact give further consideration to, is paragraph (e) which deals with the discharge in order to promote efficiency or economy in a school. I may consider omitting (e) completely, but I want to say nothing further at this stage.

The reason why I want to include the Public Service Commission under paragraph (e), is because the Public Service Commission is being consulted in respect of paragraph (c), which provides that any person may be discharged—

If you were to read that, Sir, in the light of the provision dealing with the establishment of a State-aided school or a State school (clause 8), then you would find that the establishment is determined on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. That is the position as far as paragraph (c) is concerned. The hon. the Minister asked why the Public Service Commission has to be brought into it whenever we decide how we are going to organize the schools, and how large the establishment should be. My reply is that the Public Service Commission is in fact being brought into it in terms of clause 8. Clause 21 (1) (e) provides that a person may be discharged—

What I cannot understand is this: The establishment has to be determined on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission, but according to this paragraph it may be determined according to the opinion of the Minister. All we want to do now is to insert the words “after an inquiry by the Public Service Commission”, and I cannot see what objection there can be to that. The argument of the hon. the Minister is that it will mean additional work for the Public Service Commission. But the Public Service Commission is already half involved in the determination of the establishment. Sir, “efficient” is a relative term, and someone has to decide whether efficiency will be promoted in a school by discharging a certain teacher, and it is for that reason that we want to bring the Public Service Commission into it here. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept this part of the amendment. The hon. the Minister said, over and over again, in respect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Florida, that he does not want to discriminate against the White women in South-West Africa. But, Sir, in the teaching profession in South Africa one already has the position that women in certain provinces may be appointed in a permanent capacity. At present there is discrimination against those employed in Coloured education and against those employed in education in South-West Africa, and if the hon. the Minister begins by remedying the position in Coloured education, then the Administration in South-West Africa would, after all, be able to follow his example. It was said here that in certain provinces, such as Natal, certain conditions were laid down as far as married women teachers were concerned. Sir, no such condition has been laid down in Natal. A married woman can be appointed in a permanent capacity there without any restrictions.

Sir, on behalf of South-West Africa we want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept that proposal in regard to married women.

Are you a misogynist now?

Sir, if you know the colleagues of those hon. members in South-West Africa as we know them, then you will know that this proposal is being made here today with a specific purpose. We know their colleagues there, and we know the little newspaper they have there, which is continually scratching around among the trash-cans, as certain members here also do, and if the Minister accepts this amendment, then I should like to see the headlines in that little newspaper next Friday, or next Tuesday. That is why we as South-West Africa members are making an appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept this amendment.

I also regard the matter in that light. The Opposition is in trouble, and they now want me to land myself in trouble, the same trouble they are in. They will not persuade me to do this. They will simply have to see, in due course, how they can get themselves out of that difficulty; that is their affair.

What difficulty is that?

I do not want to spell it out here. My hon. friend here has already done so.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Durban Central that it is quite correct that the establishment cannot be enlarged without the permission of the Public Service Commission. That goes without saying; there is no Minister sitting here who can do that, and I cannot do it in respect of Baster education in South-West Africa. But the Public Service Commission is not going to ask me how many people I am going to appoint in Rehoboth. I mentioned in my Second Reading speech here how many schools there are in Rehoboth. There are a large number of schools, but the Public Service Commission is not interested in what I am going to do in every school. The internal arrangement in a school is a matter for my department, by means of its inspectorate, and its administration from above. Therefore I cannot see why I should go to the Public Service Commission if I want to make some arrangement or other in a particular school. As long as I remain within my establishment, I am quite in order. That is all I want to say.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, duly authorized by the hon. member for Wynberg, I wish to move the following amendment—

As I understand this amendment, it is exactly the same in principle as the amendment which the hon. the Minister has now moved and I trust that he will be prepared to accept it on those grounds alone. I feel that while we on this side of the House are against any person in the employ of the department doing anything as detailed in paragraph (s), namely to do or connive at anything which is prejudicial to the administration, discipline or efficiency of the department, then obviously he should be disciplined and punished for it. But I believe there is ample legislation to deal with an individual who commits such a type of offence against other departments and I believe that it would be consistent if the Minister were to accept this amendment in the light of his own amendment.

At this stage I am not prepared to accept that amendment. I was under the impression that it was the same amendment as mine, and therefore I did not look at it. However, I am prepared to look at it before the measure is considered in the Other Place.

To explain to the hon. the Minister I can say that the amendment which he accepted in (e) is one which originally came from our side. It deals with the case where a person may perhaps make statements or exercise criticism in public, or criticize a State department. Our amendment states that it should be only his own department. If we read paragraph (s) we see that it states if “he does or causes or permits to be done or connives at anything which is prejudicial to the administration, discipline or efficiency of any department, office or institution of the State or a State-aided school”. If the hon. the Minister accepts the first one, which really deals only with criticism, then I think that this one can be accepted as readily, for after all such a person must do nothing against his own department. That we accept.

Then I accept the amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 23:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

In this regard there is, in fact, only one point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is that we are concerned here with the position when a person is accused of some form of misconduct mentioned in the previous clause. The clause as it stands may have very serious consequences for a person, the mere fact that he is accused of some form of misconduct. The sole object of my amendment is to ensure that when a person is accused, it will be done by means of a proper affidavit so that a person will not lay a charge lightly and so that, if an unjust charge has been laid, one may act in that respect. In other words, this is merely to put the matter on a proper basis so as to ensure that such a person will not suffer serious consequences unless a proper charge has been laid against him in a proper way.

No, I cannot accept this amendment. We shall not listen to gossip which is conveyed to us from outside. If we act against people, we do so on the basis of departmental investigations and inquiries from people who have ascertained the facts. I think experience has proved, both in White education and in Coloured education in South-West Africa, that one may rely on the inspectors of schools and on the people who advise the department in this regard. From whom is one to demand written affidavits? The principal may submit a case and the inspector may submit a case, but we shall not listen to stories from outside, therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

The hon. the Minister says he will not accept gossip from outside, but in practice this does happen at times. The teacher is actively involved in the community and sometimes it happens that stories, gossip or charges, are brought to the principal from outside, whereupon he takes action as a result of the charge which has reached him. This places the teacher in a very bad position. This does not apply to Coloured education only. It applies to education throughout the country as well. I believe that if the position were such that the teacher knew that if a charge were to be laid against him, it could be done by means of a sworn affidavit only, we would make progress in the matter of the status of teachers in South Africa.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 25 :

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

This clause makes provision for persons in the employ of Coloured Education to make themselves available and to stand as candidates at elections for a provincial council, Parliament or other legislative bodies. This is not a matter which relates to Coloured persons only; it is a matter which relates to Whites as well, and there is a large number of Whites in the Department. Now, one is grateful that they may make themselves available for an election in terms of this clause. In terms of this clause, as it now reads, such a person shall be deemed to have resigned from the service of the department with effect from the moment he was nominated. What happens now? Now this person loses, and I believe this makes matters difficult for the teachers. Now, if he should lose the election, he would be out of the service; his contract would be broken, he would have lost his status and his pension benefits would have been forfeited. In terms of the amendment I have moved, such a person still has to obtain consent from the hon. the Minister to stand, but it provides that with effect from the date on which that person was nominated, he shall be deemed to have been on unpaid leave, and the moment he is elected, he resigns from the service. In other State departments—and I think it is the case on the Railways—one specifically has this kind of case where a person is able to get unpaid leave. Nobody expects the State to pay people while they are fighting elections, i.e. from the time they are nominated up to the day of the election. As this clause reads at present, I feel it discriminates against teachers, particularly if regard is had to the fact that in the case of other State departments it is possible for persons to take unpaid leave for such purposes. Some of the provincial councils have passed legislation providing that a person may stand for election without losing his status. As this clause reads at present, it means that such a person loses his status when he resigns from the service. He also loses his pension benefits and all other privileges. Moreover, it may turn out that he is not elected.

Mr. Chairman, in this case, too, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to accept it. In the case of the White teacher in South-West Africa the position is that he resigns from the service on the day of his official nomination. I foresee that we shall run into very big problems if we piloted through this Parliament legislation in terms of which a Coloured person or a person of any other race would receive benefits which the Whites do not have. It would create endless problems for us.

Those hon. members will just have to do it themselves one day, when, perhaps a century from now, the moment will arrive that they will come into power. After all, they are prepared to give these people political rights as well, so that they may have a say in the Legislative Assembly. When they proceed to that step, they may at the same time place this amendment on the Statute Book. However, I want to ask this Government never to grant those rights to the other population groups as long as we are in power, as something of that nature would create endless problems for us, because the Whites in South West do not have those privileges.

In the Republic as well as South West it has often happened that teachers stood for election as candidates for whatever party. When such teachers are nominated officially, they resign from the service. On these grounds I ask the hon. the Minister not to accept this amendment either; if it were accepted, it would create many problems for us.

I want to say by way of repetition that I still think this action is taken here on purpose so that we may be placed in a bad light there. We have an Opposition there which, as certain hon. members are also doing here, continually kicks up a big fuss. I repeat that I should like to see how that little newspaper, which is the Opposition’s bed-fellow, would carry on if the Coloured people and other population groups received rights which the Whites do not have. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Minister not to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mariental has already entered the debate two or three times, and every time he comes forward with political considerations.

But those are your considerations. We know your smoke-screens.

We are now improving an education Bill and we want to afford the hon. the Minister the opportunity of placing on the Statute Book a model education Bill in South Africa.

What is the position in Natal? What was the hon. member’s personal experience as a teacher, and what is his standpoint?

I am very glad the hon. member asked those questions, because I have personal knowledge of this kind of regulation which compels you to resign. It happened to me that I had to resign. If you are nominated, you have to break your contract and then you simply lose your seniority.

I have already made it clear to the hon. the Minister that I am not impressed by the fact that it may possibly not be the case in this or that province. My standpoint is that we are in the position to take the lead here in the field of education and that the hon. the Minister should be afforded the opportunity to do so. I believe that we should take the opportunity and to my mind this is the attitude we have adopted in this debate. We say that this legislation deals with education and that we want to give the teachers the best possible education Act. If the Basters of Rehoboth just happened to be the first group of people in South Africa who have a model education Act—even if we do not agree in principle with the legislation—I nevertheless believe that we should use that opportunity. It is in this spirit that I have moved this amendment. I have personal experience of it, and I know it is very difficult. In regard to this whole question, i.e. that we are now allegedly giving the Coloureds something, I should like to point out that numerous Whites are employed in the Department which deals with the education of Coloured persons and of the Basters of Rehoboth. This clause, as it now reads, relates to persons who make themselves available for election as members of Parliament—do the Coloureds have a Parliament in South-West Africa?—the provincial council or the Legislative Assembly. The people who will in actual fact benefit by it in practice, will be the Whites who are employed in that department. The hon. members now want me to go back to Natal and tell the people that they should be jealous of the Department of Coloured Education.

Yes, first go to Natal.

That is not the spirit in which we should regard this matter. I want to return to my province and tell the people there that the officials of this department have a privilege they should also he able to enjoy. That is the whole point.

Do not use South West as a guinea pig.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member is advocating, in point of fact amounts to the position that teachers throughout the country, for all the different population groups, should have the right to seek election as members of the House of Assembly and the provincial councils without such teachers being dismissed or relieved from their posts upon nomination. They should be in a position to be nominated and to fight a full election, and if they are unsuccessful, then they should be able to return to their posts without any further ado. [Interjections.] I want to point out that it is in actual fact the candidate of that hon. member’s party in Brakpan who says that the National Party indoctrinates by means of education. That hon. member was actively engaged in politics in Natal, but now, while an election is in progress, he suggests that we should introduce this. What they are accusing us of, we must introduce now. Can you imagine what will happen if we are to accept in principle what the hon. member proposes in his amendment? In that case we would simply be allowing teachers in all the different population groups to engage actively in politics, and we would be obliging them to do so.

Have you read the legislation?

I have read the legislation properly. I myself was a lecturer at a university, but the moment I was asked to stand for the House of Assembly, I simply had to accept the consequences. My official nomination resulted in my immediate dismissal from my post. I think this is a very sound principle, one in which we should back up and support the hon. the Minister. The country should know it is the National Party that wants to safeguard the country from party political organizations and activities in education.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place, I do not believe the hon. member for Rissik took the trouble to read this legislation. He only sat here thinking that this was an opportunity for him to make a little political capital out of the matter. The fact remains that this legislation makes provision for persons in the department to become members of political organizations.

I agree.

He may be a member. Amendments have also been moved here which will make it possible for such a teacher to criticize any department in public. In other words, he may engage in politics. Now that hon. member wants to suggest that we want to bring politics into this matter by means of this amendment. Politics have already been brought into the matter. Such a teacher may take part in politics.

This amendment of mine merely seeks to help the teacher. That is the only thing it envisages. I want the hon. the Minister to pay no attention to the political contributions which have come from hon. members on that side of the House, and I want him to see the matter purely from the teacher’s point of view. Here we are making things difficult for the teacher. For years attempts have been made in South-West Africa to give the teaching profession professional status, but now we come to this kind of case and we find that there is in point of fact discrimination against the teacher because this actually is discrimination. One finds the engineer with a professional status who works on the Railways …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I have ten minutes at my disposal only. That engineer, who is a professional man, may realize himself fully. So part of his life, as in this case, is to seek election in politics, but in this case there is discrimination against the teacher. As an ex-teacher I shall always act as a champion for teachers. That is why I should like the hon. the Minister to seize this golden opportunity and to set us an example in South Africa.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 36:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, duly authorized, I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg, as follows—

1. (p) as to the appointment of attendance officers in the case of the application of section 29 (2);

I believe that we on this side of the House and hon. members opposite are at one in regard to the acceptance of the implementation of compulsory education as and when it becomes possible and feasible to do so. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that when that stage is reached, the administration will be as smooth as possible. I think we have to accept that we will be dealing in this particular instance with people who may be ignorant of the provisions of the law, may lack understanding of it and may through these causes, fail to carry out the responsibilities in regard to seeing that their children attend school as and when compulsory education becomes a fait accompli. The aspect that worries us too, is that the punishment for people who may unwittingly contravene these provisions, is high in relation to the earning capacity of the people concerned. The first offence is punishable by a fine of R50 or imprisonment of three months and second offence by a fine of R100 or six months. We feel that in the particular area in which this legislation will be implemented there are long distances and there may be cases where communications are not as adequate as they should be and that if attendance officers are appointed in order to assist the administration of compulsory education, it could only be to the good of the administration of this particular Bill. So we ask that the hon. the Minister give his favourable consideration to this matter.

Then I want to deal with the second portion of the amendment which reads: “and omit all the words after ‘guardian’ in line 4, page 37, to the end of the Clause.” The effect of this amendment if accepted, will be that clause 40 (6) will then read as follows :

The section which we wish to have deleted reads:“Where any doubt exists as to the home language of such child”. We believe, and it is a principle of the official Opposition, that a parent or guardian should have this right of final decision in any case. In view of our acceptance of this principle, we ask the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Wynberg.

I regret I cannot accept the second amendment, namely “to omit all the words after ‘guardian’ in line 4, page 37, to the end of the clause”, as it seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I cannot accept the first part of the proposed amendment either. After all, hon. members opposite must not think that we are going to introduce compulsory school attendance for these people helter-skelter. We are in this legislation providing for the introduction of compulsory school attendance when it becomes necessary and when circumstances make it possible for us to do so. We will allow ourselves to be led by experience in this connection. When that happens, we will certainly start with an education campaign. After all, one will not immediately start prosecuting people now if a child is not attending school. When the entire population is aware of the new dispensation in respect of compulsory school attendance, these persons referred to by hon. members opposite can be used. They will be persons who will be made available to us by the Public Service Commission.

For that reason the proposed amendment is, in my opinion, not applicable and feasible, and at this stage it is not at all relevant either. I cannot see the use of seriously considering this matter now. They will in any event be persons made available to us by the Public Service Commission when we ask for them. I can tell hon. members that I foresee that it will be some considerable time before circumstances will develop in such a way that we can introduce compulsory school attendance. We shall in any event introduce compulsory school attendance very gradually. The population will be very much aware of it as we introduce it stage by stage.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Rehoboth Affairs put and agreed to.

Remaining amendment proposed by Mr. L. F. Wood put and negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (a) cannot derive sufficient benefit from the instruction normally provided in the ordinary course of education; or
2. (b) requires special education in order to facilitate his adaptation to the community; or
3. (c) should not attend an ordinary class in an ordinary school, because such attendance may be harmful to himself or to the other pupils in such class; (ix);

and in line 42, page 3, and in lines 21 and 27, page 5, respectively, to omit “deviate” and to substitute “handicapped”.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 3 :

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, since the hon. the Minister’s amendment is, with the exception of the word “concerned”, exactly the same as the amendment standing in my name, I shall not move my amendment. I just want to thank the hon. the Minister for having in fact agreed to accept the principle of this matter. I hope that this will be beneficial to the education of the Nama.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the transfer of persons employed at State-aided schools to the service of the Department in the event of the transfer of such schools. As I read the clause it does not, in actual fact, cover the question of the salary the person is going to obtain when he is transferred. This is not guaranteed here. In clause 13 they guarantee virtually everything, but not the person’s salary. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot perhaps tell us more about that, particularly in the light of the fact that I introduced a similar amendment to the Bill on the Coloured persons. Admittedly I did not do so in the case of the Bill relating to the Rehoboth Basters.

My reply to the hon. member for Durban Central is that at the present moment we pay for all education at the schools of these three national groups in South-West Africa, whether they are State schools or State-aided schools. Consequently no problems can arise with the staff of those schools if we take over a State-aided school. They are already on our establishment and they already receive their monthly cheque. There will consequently be no difference in the remuneration they receive.

The Minister may perhaps think that it is, in fact, a hypothetical case. This matter could have worked both ways. Persons can come across from private schools and insist on a higher salary. As it now stand this is not possible, however, because the hon. the Minister’s department must determine the salary scale and the notch. As I have said, I am glad the hon. the Minister has given an explanation of this.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I want to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I have not yet changed my opinion about this matter and neither has the hon. the Minister, I believe. I therefore do not want to repeat the debate.

Question put: That paragraph (d) of subsection (1) stand part of the Clause.

Upon which the Committee divided :

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

Tellers : A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendments proposed by Mr. J. J. M. Stephens dropped.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to.

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

Clause 18:

Duly authorized, I wish to move the following amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg—

This is a similar amendment to the one which we moved in a previous Bill and I do not wish to speak to it.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 19 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments standing in my name—

Since we have already put our standpoint very clearly to the hon. the Minister in the Committee Stages of the previous two Bills, I just formally want to move the amendment and express the hope that he will be prepared to accept the amendments.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 20 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 21 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments standing in my name—

Precisely the same principles are involved here, and I do not believe it is necessary for me to elaborate further on this.

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment standing in my name—

I do not want to repeat what has already been said in the debate about the previous Bills. I am therefore just formally moving my amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 22 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

Mr. Chairman, duly authorized, I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg, as follows—

In doing so I point out that the hon. the Minister accepted this amendment in a previous Bill and I trust he will do the same in this particular case.

I accepted it in the previous Bill and I consequently accept it in this Bill too. I accepted it without having been able to go into the matter properly because I thought that amendment and mine were the same, but that was a mistake I made. I shall look at it again, but I now accent it here.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 23 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 30:

This clause deals with financial aid and other assistance to pupils at certain schools and students of a university. It was pointed out in a previous debate that this clause stands in the original Coloured Persons Education Act, but there has been an addition, and that is in regard to students of a university established by any law. This particular Bill deals with a Nama who is a student at a university established by any law. I appreciate that this could be a long-term provision but I rise to ask the hon. the Minister what thoughts he has about the provision of university education for the Namas. He has indicated previously that the Namas have a language of their own. They represent a numerically small group or race, and I ask him whether he has any intention in the foreseeable future, of providing the education which necessitates the last phrase in this particular clause.

I have no such intention in the near future. Not all Namas can speak their own language although they can all speak Afrikaans. However, most Namas can speak their own language and it is the intention in the lower primary classes to give some instruction through the medium their own language. But otherwise, whenever we come to an arrangement to provide university education for Namas, Coloured and Bantu of South-West Africa, or other higher technical or other training, I am sure that could be done through a common institution, owing to the smallness of their numbers, and I am sure we shall have no difficulty in crossing that bridge when we come to it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

Mr. Chairman, duly authorized, I move the following amendment printed in the name of the hon. member for Wynberg—

The matter has already been discussed and I do not wish to pursue it further.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. L. F. Wood put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as the title of this Bill indicates, it provides for the control of education for Coloured persons in the territory of South-West Africa and for matters incidental thereto. As far as the first part is concerned, viz. the control of education, we have to take into account that in the past the control in practice vested in the South-West Africa Administration. I accept the explanation of the hon. the Minister that his department has been taking over the control since 1969; in other words, that control already was in the process of transition and transfer before this legislation was introduced. However, I should like the hon. the Minister to see our standpoint as well. This is the first opportunity we have of specifically scrutinizing the effect this transfer of control will have on education and in particular on Coloured education.

In the opinion of this side of the House, this legislation will have quite a number of adverse effects. The first adverse effect I see in it is that fewer local people—in other words, South-West Africans—will feel themselves to be concerned in the development and progress of Coloured education. In the past, when the control vested in the South-West Africa Administration, every member of the Legislative Assembly of South-West Africa had a certain responsibility towards Coloured education. They were directly concerned with the problems of Coloured education. The effect of this Bill is that they are now being eliminated. This Bill gives the local people—by this I mean the members of the Legislative Assembly—the opportunity of sitting back and washing their hands as far as Coloured education is concerned. Surely the most responsible group of people in South-West Africa are the members of the Legislative Assembly. I do not know exactly whether there are 20 or 24 members, but surely the Legislative Assembly is the most responsible body in South-West Africa. By this legislation we are going to push them aside in practice.

I see the hon. member for Etosha is looking at me. I accept that they still have six representatives in this House who can look after their interests, but I believe that the more people there are who are involved the better. I am not trying to reflect on the members who represent South-West Africa in the House of Assembly;

I am just saying that it would be a pity if the effect of this legislation would be simply to cut out certain people, people who have applied themselves to education.

This is the sphere in which the Legislative Assembly or the provincial councils have in actual fact functioned traditionally. As a result of this legislation they are now being cut out from this sphere. I there-fore regard this as an adverse effect.

The second adverse effect this legislation is going to have in practice, is that, according to this side of the House, the Coloured persons as such will not be given a legitimate share in the control of education. All this legislation really contemplates, in regard to the share of the Coloured person in education, is and remains of mere academic interest until such time as one can eventually also determine the political future of these people. It can only acquire real meaning when their political future has been determined. It is a fact that at this stage the Government has not even had a theoretical solution for the political future of the Coloured people in South Africa, let alone the Coloured people in South-West Africa. The present Coloured persons council that is being envisaged for South-West African can by no means exert an effective influence on the control of education. Adequate provision is not made for that in this legislation. Of course, they may perhaps become members of school committees and boards, and I am most grateful that they will perhaps be consulted there on important matters; but in actual fact they can exercise no real influence, especially since it is, in any case, the tendency of the Government to appoint only nominated persons to such boards.

Then we come to the third adverse effect this legislation will have in practice. This is, of course, the one we have mentioned repeatedly, which is inherent in a system where you try to control people from a centralized point. In other words, the problems inherent in that system will affect Coloured education adversely.

Sir, we live in a vast country, South Africa, and to this we are adding the vast South-West Africa as well. No person will ever convince me that the ideal state of affairs is to exercise the control through from a Government department removed miles from there. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he will experience problems in practice. If he looks for the cause of it, he will find that there is not enough contact with the local people. It is no use crying then; he should have made provision for that. This legislation does not adequate provision for that.

Then there is the next aspect, viz. the actual transfer of schools. In practice this legislation lays down the provisions in terms of which schools and teachers are going to be transferred. I want to tell you, Sir, that I believe the transfer of schools in this respect will take place more smoothly and, in so far as it has already taken place, did so more smoothly than was the case in 1963 when Coloured education was transferred from the provincial administrations to the Department of Coloured Affairs. The reason for this, I believe, that this transfer took place more or less in accordance with a U.P. recipe in 1972, more so than was the case in 1963. In 1963 the present hon. Minister of Defence was Minister of Coloured Affairs. He said, for example, that transfer of the control of State schools to the department could only take place in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Order! Yes, but are we considering that matter or this Bill?

We are considering this Bill and the reason why this is going to work so well in practice. In this Bill we see a tremendous improvement on 1963. I want to draw your attention to clause 5 now6. The improvement is that transfer can now only take place after negotiation and agreement with the governing bodies of the schools that have to be transferred. This is something which does not exist in the 1963 Act. That is why I say that I think that, as far as the transfer of schools is concerned, the implementation of this Bill will take place smoothly, because this reference to negotiations and agreements was proposal of our at the time which the then Minister would not accept. That is why I believe the hon. the Minister will not encounter too many problems in this respect.

The next aspect we have to look at to see how this is going to work out in practice, is the question of the teacher himself. You know, Sir, we are not only making arrangements and framing provisions for the department as such, but in this Bill we have, in the main, quite a number of provisions in regard to the rights and privileges of the teacher. Now, I may say that I am grateful that the hon. the Minister accepted proposals from this side of the House in certain cases. I want to make it clear that we made those proposals because we believed they would improve the teacher’s position. I think he will now find, when he applies this in practice, that those amendments that have been made will have a beneficial effect, particularly in regard to the fact that the teacher will, for example, be able to say that the Post Office service is poor without having to fear—as the Bill read originally—that he will be charged with misconduct.

The hon. the Minister himself proposed the omission from this legislation, for example in the case of clause 22 (f), of the provision that a teacher may not become a member of an organization not approved by him. I am glad this was done. But despite all those improvements, if one considers how many of our amendments he accepted, we have also given him quite a number of valuable hints from an educational point of view. I have to thank him sincerely for having been prepared to accept them purely on the basis of educational merit. In certain respects this Bill, as educational legislation, is better than that in other provinces in South Africa.

I am very glad too that this is the position, Sir, there are still deficiencies that I do not think should be here. It is not necessary to refer to them now; all morning we have been moving amendments to the other clauses dealing with these matters. There are deficiencies we on this side of the House believe there should not be in a good education Act.

Consequently I want to say that I believe that because there are deficiencies and certain limitation, the legislation is not going to work as well in practice as the hon. the Minister hopes it will. Seen from the point of view of the teacher, it is not going to promote education as much as it should. For this reason we on this side of the House are going to vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, during the Second Reading debate I promised the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that I would say something at the Third Reading about a question he had put to me on what the position would be in the future in respect of the salaries of Coloured teachers in South-West Africa. My reply to that question is that if the Public Service Commission should, for some reason or other, consider special scales necessary for South-West Africa, and should recommend them, I would have the power under this legislation to approve and pay them in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This is merely a theoretical reply, but I would have the power to do so if the Public Service Commission so recommended and the Minister said that he had the money available.

Apart from that I just want to say that there is not much to reply to. I think on the whole we have thrashed out all the matters thoroughly.

Motion put and the House divided:

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

Tellers: A. Hopewell and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Business suspended at 12.47 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned yesterday, I was making the point that the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act is in essence a social welfare measure in which the interests of the insured and the injured claimant are paramount. This measure, which was originally introduced in 1942 by the United Party, operated virtually unchanged for 22 years until amendments were introduced by the present Government. These amendments were introduced in 1964, 1966, and 1969 and brought an increasing measure of State control into the management; they applied the closed-shop principle in so far as companies that were able to participate in this insurance by the introduction of the consortium, and they converted what was a re-insurance company, the MVA Fund, into a State-controlled operation. When the House adjourned yesterday, I was pointing out that a dramatic change in the tempo of settlement of claims took place after the 1969 amendments to the present Act became operative. I pointed out that the amendments to the Act, which became operative on 2nd April 1969, had an immediate effect on the tempo of settlement of claims. In the year 1966-’67 claims paid amounted to R16 million and at the end of the insurance year, which ended at the end of April, there were unsettled claims amounting to R2¼ million. The following year still under the old dispensation, R13½ million was paid out and at the end of the year the outstanding claims amounted to R7 million. At the end of the year when the 1969 management procedures became operative, we found that in the first year, 1968-’69,only R6½ million had been paid out in compensation while the outstanding claims amounted to R17 million. The position had deteriorated further during the year 1969-’70, when there was paid out only R1,8 million in compensation, while the outstanding claims amounted to R20 million. Sir, two points are very obvious. The one is that there was a deterioration in the tempo in which claims were settled and the second point is that one would have expected in any event a greater payment because there was most certainly not a reduction in the number of motor accidents in which individuals were injured. Sir, it is obvious that a delay in the settlement of claims under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act should be avoided at all costs. What are all these claims about, Sir? These are claims of the innocent injured at the hands of a negligent driver. And what do they include, Sir? They include not injury to property or damage to motor vehicles but, first of all, the loss of earnings of a person being injured and being prevented from working through the negligence of another driver. Sir, there must obviously be an urgency that the claim for loss of earnings should be settled immediately. In the second place, Sir, there is the question of doctors’ and hospital expenses, other than of course provincial hospitals where there applies a special arrangement, and there again every moment of delay keeps some medical man or hospital waiting for the funds they are entitled to. Sir, what are the other claims which arise out of this Act? These are claims for compensation for pain and suffering and for loss of amenities of life, compensation for loss of future earnings and the provision for future medical expenses. Under the present set-up, under the present Act, the settlement of these claims has been more and more delayed than in the past and one must therefore examine this Bill which is now before us, Sir, in the light of what improvement in the management of the MVA Fund is envisaged. Last week we had occasion for a discussion under the Vote of the Minister of Transport of the management of the Fund under the Act as it now stands and in respect of which we are now considering improvements. The hon. the Minister of Transport conceded three very important facts. In the first place, in regard to the powers of the managers of the MVA Fund, which are re-enacted in this particular Bill before us, the hon. the Minister said, and I quote: “He, the manager, had excessive powers which he should never have had.” Sir, those powers could only have been derived from the Act and the Bill before us does not in any way restrict what was referred to by the hon. the Minister of Transport as “excessive powers”. In fact, Sir, the Bill before us provides for even greater powers being given to the manager of the MVA Fund. But clause 33 …

What clause is it?

Did the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport say “nonsense’? If he did, I think he should study his Bill.

I asked what clause it was.

I beg your pardon. I refer to clause 33. Under this clause, Sir, the hon. the Minister may delegate powers which he has under this Act; he may delegate these powers and shed himself of total responsibility in favour of the manager of the Fund. And what is more, Sir, this is a new provision under this Bill. Let me refer to the second admission made by the hon. the Minister of Transport, which was in relation to the investment of funds. The hon. the Minister said the following, and I quote again: “Mr. Gouws had no right to invest any of the funds in those private companies.” The hon. the Minister of Transport was referring to eight separate investments totalling R6½ million.

Sir, there is no provision in this Bill which prevents or at least limits the powers which are in the present Act and which have been found to be ineffective in controlling investment of the funds. In the first place, the hon. the Minister of Transport confirmed that Mr. Gouws took it upon himself to invest this money before obtaining approval from the hon. the Deputy Minister. Sir, there is no provision in this Bill which amends the existing laws under which this type of investment was posible under this Deputy Minister.

Sir, let us now examine the provisions of this Bill in so far as we are, in fact, reenacting the existing provisions. Clause 7 of the Bill re-enacts section 25 (c) (i) (f) and (g) of the Act. Clause 7 of the Bill deals “with the powers which the MVA Fund will have. In paragraph (f) it is Stated-Subject to the Minister’s approval in every case, to purchase … etc. And then. Sir, in paragraph (g) it is stated that—

etc. And then we come to paragraph (h), which I want to quote in full—

That is a re-enactment of the present provisions as they stand in the existing law What has happened under the statutory in junctions and obligations which are placed on the hon. the Deputy Minister? The hon. Deputy Minister is the person responsible for approving of the investments, but what do we find has happened? The hon. Minister now wishes us to re-enact the same provisions. On 23rd June, 1969, R1 million was invested in an unauthorized and improper manner, and this has been admitted by the hon. the Minister. A cheque for R1 million was signed despite the statutory requirements in the Act and last week the hon. Deputy Minister himself did not know how many signatures were required to sign that cheque for R1 million. He told us that one signature only was required. He told us that the cheque was signed by Mr. Gouws only. In reply to a question he now tells me that there were two signatories to that cheque. Two officials of his department were able to sign a cheque for R1 million without this fact becoming known to the hon. the Minister until a member of the public wrote to the Prime Minister who then referred the matter to the Minister of Transport. That occurred 18 months later. This is not the end of it. On 3rd April, 1970, a further R1 million was invested in a similar way, presumably with two signatories. Here I might mention that apparently only one official has been suspended. However, another R1 million had been invested. Now we come to the end of the insurance year, the year 1969-’70, which ended at the end of April, 1970. The non. Deputy Minister, in reply to a question, has now informed us that on 13 October, 1970, he received the audited accounts of the MVA Fund for the year ended 30th April, 1970. Surely those two irregular investments appear on the schedule of investments presented by the audited accounts received in October, 1970. Why did the hon. the Minister not notice them? Why were they not discovered? Who looks at these audited accounts or do they merely go into a file in a cabinet? Who looks at them? They are not tabled in this House.

Order! Is the hon. member discussing the Bill now or the administration?

I am discussing the re-enactment in this Bill of provisions which exist …

The hon. member is discussing the administration.

I am pointing out the provisions that do not close the gaps which were found to exist in the past. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether under the provisions which he now wishes to enact, there was no auditor’s inquiry as to the Minister’s authority having been given for these investments. I ask this because normal procedure should have been adopted. I would also like the hon. Deputy Minister to tell us who were the auditors who audited this Fund.

Yes, but that is a matter which can be discussed on another occasion. The hon. member must come back to the Bill now.

I come back to the Bill because, under the provisions of the Bill which is before us, there can continue to occur such irregularities; no attempt is being made to close the gate. There is no attempt to avoid the irregularities which may continue. The Bill does not provide, and I believe that this is a grave defect, that the audited accounts of the MVA Fund should be laid upon the Table of this House. I believe that is a grave defect in the Bill which is before us. I say this because there is no control by Parliament or no access by Parliament to the records of the MVA Fund. At an appropriate time in the Committee Stage, we shall move amendments to see that that state of affairs does not continue. There are certain questions on the Bill, where it re-enacts the present Act, which remain unanswered. How is it possible, and is the Minister satisfied that where we now enact that an investment shall only be made with the Minister’s approval, that that enactment is sufficient to see and to ensure that that particular requirement is in fact carried out? What is the value of re-enacting provisions which the hon. Minister knows have been ineffective in the past? It seems to me that we must look very closely at these powers which we now wish to re-enact in view of what has occurred in the past, occurred to the detriment of the insured and the insurers. I believe that we should ensure that further provisions are included in the Bill before us and that we ought to make certain that the statutory requirements are carried out. I believe the one way in which we can ensure that it will be carried out is to embody in this Bill provisions of the nature of the provisions which apply to the existing committee under one of the provisions of the Act which is not being reenacted, and that is to require that the approval of investments shall be done in such a way and that the schedules should be tabled in this House, so that there can be no question of investments being made wrongly. It seems to me that no attempt has been made in this Bill to include provisions which would render it quite impossible for R6½ million to be paid out contrary to the provisions of the law itself. This has happened in this particular case. When we raised this matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister, he shrugged his shoulders and said that there were these people who did these wrong things in life.

Where did I say that?

That has been the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The Bill before us does not introduce one safeguard to prevent a recurrence of this. Let me refer to the existing committee under section 25 (d) (2) of the Act. This is the committee which under the present Act is to be appointed by the hon. the Minister and which would have certain powers to advise the manager as well as the Minister. What does the hon. the Minister say? The hon. Minister tells us that the first committee was appointed in 1969 and for the year 1969-’70 had met twice. Another committee appointed under the provisions of the existing Act, provisions which are re-enacted under this Bill, for 1970-’71 had met once. In 1971-’72 this committee met twice. In this Bill we find provision for the same committee. What did the hon. the Minister say in this House on the 20th of this month? He was asked about this committee and he said, and I quote his Hansard—

That is not the same committee. That is the advisory committee.

I shall refer to that just now. Then I asked the hon. the Minister: “Hoekom nie?” and the Deputy Minister replied—

Why do we then have provision in this Bill before us to constitute a committee, in exactly the same words and in exactly the same form, with the permissive powers for the Minister to do so? The provision is in exactly the same form. The hon. Minister may, for purposes of the Act, reconstitute this committee. This is the committee that he says had no function to perform under the old Act. Yet we are now asked to re-enact that. The Deputy Minister’s control, or should I say lack of control, is again being evidenced and again there is no provision in this Bill in regard to the question of payment of commission on investment. The Deputy Minister said the following to me in reply to a question Die agb. Minister het reeds vir die agb. lid gesé dat die Staat nie kommissie toelaat nie.

Sir, the hon. the Minister was asked questions on the same topic, and when he was asked whether in fact commission was ever paid, he said this—and I quote from Hansard of the 7th March …

Order! What part of the Bill is the hon. member dealing with now?

Sir, this is on the question of the management of the funds and the powers which are given to the MVA Fund.

The hon. member is now discussing the Act as it stands and the administration.

I do so, Sir, because despite what has been exposed in regard to maladministration, the hon. the Deputy Minister is re-enacting the same provisions.

The hon. member is dealing with the administration; he is not dealing with the Bill. I should like him to confine himself to the Bill.

On a point of order Sir, may I submit that in order to discuss the validity and the necessity for the provisions of the Bill, the hon. member for Green Point is entitled to show where those provisions do not meet the requirements in practice?

Order! I am taking all that into consideration. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Sir, I come back to the provisions of the Bill in clause 7, which refer to the question of investment of moneys under the direction of the Minister. We are trying to find out what yardstick the Minister will apply in approving or disapproving of investments. One of the questions relating to investments is whether or not the Minister would approve of investments on which a commission is paid.

I wish to point out that the hon. the Minister indicated to the House last week “dat die Staat nie kommissie toelaat nie”. But the hon. the Deputy Minister himself, in replying to a question as to whether commission is paid, said, according to Hansard of the 7th March, 1972, cols. 476 and 477 that commission, was paid only in certain instances where commission was offered as a, specific condition of investment. Sir, that is in direct conflict with what was stated by the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he envisages that clause 7 (1) (h) of this Bill entitles the Fund to make investments upon which a commission is paid.

Let me turn now to the question of the powers of the manager. Clause 7 (1) (d) particularly, which is a re-enactment of section 25 (c), gives the Fund the power to investigate or settle claims or to commence, conduct, defend or abandon legal proceedings. Sir, we warned the Minister in 1969, when a similar provision was introduced in the amending measure, that this would empower the manager to interfere in and to have a say in the settlement of cases which were not restricted to unidentified or uninsured vehicles. The hon. the Deputy Minister has said, in introducing this measure, that it is his intention that these powers of the manager should be restricted only to those cases. But I want to point out that the Bill does not say that. The assurances that he gave us in 1969 that that was the intention have not been worth a row of beans, because the manager was not prevented from interfering. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we will make it quite clear in the Committee Stage of this Bill that those powers to investigate and settle claims should be restricted in the Act itself to claims arising under clause 7 (2) (a) and (b), that is to say, in respect of uninsured and unidentified vehicles.

Sir, let me leave that and proceed to certain of the amendments which we on this side do certainly welcome. We welcome the fact that the existing permissive meeting of claims arising from the driving of unidentified and uninsured vehicles is now becoming compulsory. We think that that is a step in the right direction. Similarly, we welcome the increase in the limits of liability, from R8000 to R12 000 in the case of individual claims, and from R40000 to R60000 in the case of collective claims. We also welcome the extension of the prescription period from 60 days to 90 days. We also hope that there is some significance in the use of the words that the manager shall act under the control of the Secretary and not merely under his direction, which is the wording in the present Act.

Sir, in summarizing the attitude of this side of the House, I want to say that we will support this Bill at the Second Reading because we believe that it is necessary that the laws applying to motor vehicle insurance should be reviewed. We will move certain amendments in the Committee Stage so as to avoid, so far as Parliament can, the possibility of recurrences of mismanagement which have occurred in the past. As I have said, we believe that the powers of the Fund to settle claims under clause 7 (1) (b) should be restricted in the law to claims in terms of clause 7 (2).Secondly, there is the question of the finalizing of claims. I believe that here we are facing a very real problem in that the insurance companies themselves have no financial burden or financial loss to face, whether they pay high or whether they pay low in regard to a claim, because the claim is met by the Fund. It may be that they can economize when an insurance company is not spending much money on thorough investigations and settling as soon as possible. We want to discuss with the hon the Deputy Minister at a later stage whether there should not be three stages at which settlements can be effected. The insurance companies, at their option and quite independently, can settle up to a figure of, say, R5000, and any damages in excess of R5000 should be subject to the scrutiny of a committee of insurers. One does not want an insurance company simply to pay to get rid of a claim because the money comes out of the MVA Fund. I think we should at a later stage discuss whether there should not be a scrutiny committee to look at payments in excess of, say, R5 000. I am not wedded to any particular figure. I learned this morning from a gentleman who is here from the United States that in the United States there is a strong move that payments under motor vehicle insurance should be automatic, virtually on an adapted basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. If a person is injured, he should not have to wait six or eight months to be compensated for the loss of earnings that he suffered as a result of the accident. Many people have to wait 18 months before they are compensated; one does not know how their families live in the meantime. I believe that that is a matter, too that we will have to consider very seriously.

Sir, when we come to the Committee Stage we will also move amendments to eliminate the closed shop consortium. We believe that companies which are prepared to enter into this type of insurance should be permitted to participate, especially at the present time when they have a built-in, guaranteed gross income or gross profit from the insurance that they undertake.

Then there is the question of the audited accounts and I hope the Deputy Minister will give serious consideration to accepting an amendment which we will move that the accounts of the MVA Fund should be subjected to audit by the Auditor General, and if not that there should be a statutory provision that within a certain time after the end of the financial year, the audited accounts should be tabled in this House. I believe that should be done because it is to the obvious interest of the general public.

Finally I want to say that we believe on this side of the House that the committee appointed in terms of clause 6 (3) of this Bill, i.e. the committee which may be appointed by the Minister, should in fact be a compulsory committee. That committee should be appointed by the Minister by compulsion and should then operate and carry out the terms contained in clause 6 (3). That will ensure that there is proper surveillance and supervision of the administration of this Fund. Obviously these are amendments which will arise in the Committee Stage and for that reason, as I have indicated, we will support the Bill at Second Reading and we will in due course discuss amendments of the nature which I have indicated

The hon. member for Green Point raised matters here which apparently have no bearing on the measure before us, but I cannot neglect, however, to also introduce some of the aspects he mentioned to give a proper perspective to certain provisions of the measures before us. In the first place the hon. member for Green Point created the impression that powers allocated to the MVA Fund in the existing Act were such that its administrator could overstep the mark and that he consequently created so much embarrassment in the process that certain doubts could now be raised in this House. But the fact is that the hon. member for Green Point does not tell us that this particular administrator, to whom he referred, was indeed suspended. He was not only suspended; there is a Police inquiry in progress.

Two signatures are necessary.

In other words, he surely exceeded his powers. That is surely logical. If the Ministry though fit to suspend this official and to have an inquiry instituted, it means that in their opinion he exceeded his powers and consequently they found it necessary to take action against him. In consequence it is my inference that the hon. member brought these arguments to the House to achieve only one object, i.e. to sow suspicion about the Administration. But what he also neglects to emphasize is that it was a member of the Other Place who raised this matter with the Ministry and that the Ministry, on the strength of that information, took quick and efficient action because that official exceeded the existing powers. He neglected to mention that to us. But in addition 1bis of the existing Act, which the hon. member’s contribution during the discussion under the Transport Vote, and also today, one gains the impression that the hon. member had some foreknowledge. In fact, it appears to me he had the same facts at his disposal as this side of the House had at its disposal, the facts which they conveyed to the Ministry and which led’to this action ensuing.

Then the Minister must have had it in October, 1970.

I want to state that if that hon. member had the same knowledge as we did, and chose this opportunity to make politics out of it, he did not come along here to raise the matter in the country’s interests, but to see what benefit the United Party could get out of it.

Must we take no notice of that?

I then want to state that the hon. member came along here to advance arguments alleging that the Deputy Minister did not make use of a certain committee and that the committee would supposedly be abolished, but that this same committee is nevertheless again being established in this measure before the House. In other words, his argument is that the hon. the Deputy Minister first abolishes the committee and then comes back to the House and asks that we should again establish that committee. As a result of that conclusion I want to ask the hon. member please to acknowledge that this statement of mine about him is correct. The implication would then be that he did not study the measure because it is the Advisory Committee, as established by section 1bis of the existing Act, which the Deputy Minister is abolishing, which he is leaving out of this measure. What Committee’s existence is being preserved in the measure before the House? Not the same one.

The one which was unnecessary.

No, not that one, but the committee in terms of section 25 (D). The wording of that section agrees exactly with the measure here before the House. But the hon. member for Green Point’s argument was—and he must not run away from that now—that it is the Advisory Committee the Minister abolished and now again wants to establish in this measure.

That is not so.

It is the committee under section 25 (D). But what is more, the hon. member will move an amendment and argue in the Committee Stage—so he told us that the MVA Fund abused certain powers which were given to it and which the Deputy Minister said would not be used. In fact, in the 1969 debate I myself heard the Deputy Minister say they would not be used in this way. Why is Mr. Gouws, to call him by name, no longer with this department? Because he abused that section. This does not mean that there is something wrong with the measure as it was and now is before the House. It means that the Deputy Minister thought fit to have Mr. Gouws suspended because he exceeded these specific powers.

May I ask a question? Do you agree that the Deputy Minister did not have control over the spending, because what he said in the House would never happen, did nevertheless happen?

I shall reply to that. The moment the members of this side of the House and the hon. Senator van Rensburg were given notice that these powers were being exceeded—and I can attest to this from personal experience— and those facts were brought to the Deputy Minister’s attention and the attention of his officials, they took immediate action. That is surely the answer.

In April 1971.

In other words, the shortcoming does not lie in the section: the shortcoming lay with the official who exceeded its stipulations. I now want to state that if the hon. member for Green Point comes along here and tells us that the relevant official succeeded in overstepping his powers, he should have negotiated with (a) the insurance companies and (b) certain claimants. In fact, in a previous debate the hon. member for Green Point brought us examples of direct interference by the administrator of the MVA Fund at the time, when this claim was being settled.

This must be condemned. It must be rejected. He rightly observes that it is wrong. What I cannot understand, and I want to put this on record, is that insurance companies, which have the best legal advice in this country at their disposal, and that claimants, who are usually supported by lawyers, who are expected to display a certain amount of daring and will not allow themselves to be stampeded by a man taking unauthorized action, allowed themselves to be pushed around in this way. In other words, my argument is that I cannot understand that those relevant insurance companies and those relevant claimants did not obtain an interdict against the administrator As I shall now indicate he acted completely beyond the bounds of his authority. I shall come back to that for the edification of this hon. member for Green Point, if he comes back.

For the remainder I want to confine myself to the Bill and then I shall come back to section 7 (1) (d). It is clear to me that there is a great deal of work behind the measure here before the House today. It is likewise clear to me that the Ministry of Transport, the Deputy Minister, the Secretary and his officials, must be heartily congratulated on the step of rewriting, as it were, the legal material around third party insurance and adapting it to legal judgments and, Sir, may I add, the legal draftsman involved in this deserves the utmost praise for his work. It is no child’s play to adapt legal judgments over a number of years, since 1942, in this field into a Bill which will subsequently again be presented in the very precincts of our Appeal Court. Therefore my congratulations to these bodies.

We can approach the Bill from various angles, but for the purpose of my argument I shall do so from three angles. In the first place, Sir, it is clear that certain court judgments and principles had to be adapted here and, let me also add, had to be adapted in a nearly unrecognizable way, but if one goes back to the judgments one nevertheless finds the principles again. In the second place, in these measures we find an extension of the extent of claims which third parties may institute, and an extension of the way in which the interests of claimants are being looked after.

In conclusion, Sir, I shall also look at the control and administration of the MVA Fund and related matters. I want to say that this side of the House, in particular, is entitled to join the Ministry of Transport and their officials in looking at that matter, because they are the ones who handled matters when the problem cropped up. Therefore, with respect to the implementation of judgments and so on, as we have had in our judicature, I should like to mention the following to you. In the definitions we find a totally new definition of the concept “owner”. The concept “owner” is very important throughout the Bill, because it is the owner who negotiates the insurance contract, because it is the owner who is liable in the case of an uninsured vehicle which is involved in a collision. In the previous Act it was clear that the correct definition of “owner” was still being sought, because the problem was, on the one hand, to retain the common law situation of proprietary right, and on the other hand also to make provision for those situations where insurance must be applicable to a vehicle for which the possessor could then negotiate the insurance. Consequently exceptions had to be made to the common law situation. I mentioned to you, for example, the case of hire purchase. According to common law the seller is in fact the owner, and yet he cannot negotiate the insurance, and consequently exceptions had to be made. In the existing provision it is stated that under “owner” is understood the “owner” as defined in the various provincial ordinances dealing with the transfer of proprietary right. But in the course of time the situation very clearly became complicated as a result of quite a number of judgments. We think, for example of Pottie V. Kotze and Dart v. Bredenkamp, both monumental judgments concerning this problem. Now the hon. the Minister comes along with a description of “owner” which also accords with all these problems I have mentioned and also with the economic development we have at present. For example, an exception is being made here to the common law ownership position in respect of hiring out, which today forms a large part of our motor vehicle business. For example, provision is being made here for the motor transport licence holder with his large fleet of vehicles which we frequently see. We also find this in respect of a motor vehicle dealer who has a large number of vehicles. These are all exceptions to the common law position, and I think this definition of “owner” is right on target.

Sir, as far as the application for existing judgments is concerned, there is also the very interesting judgment of Santam V. Kemp, 1971 (3), in which a fictitious approach is dealt with, i.e. that the driver of a tractor is also regarded as being the driver of the trailer, which is regarded as being a motor vehicle. Sir, you see that all kinds of fictitious elements must be dealt with to arrive at the desired result. I want to say again that in this measure that result has been arrived at.

Then, in the second place, I want to view this measure from the angle of the extention of the operation of this Act. According to the old section 11 we had the difficulties of claims by third parties only when vehicles had been properly insured, and where the identity of the vehicle was known. In the course of time it became clear that provision had to be made for the hit-and-run case, for the unidentified vehicle and also for the uninsured vehicle. It is, after all, a social measure, as the hon. member for Green Point also said. We must make provision for all these people. This was consequently done by way of an agreement and the establishment of a separate fund. It was necessary at that time, probably as a result of the availability of funds to require that there should always be contact in a hit-and-run case. It also became clear to the Ministry of Transport that there are many cases where there is no contact by an unidentified vehicle. We find so frequently that a collision takes place as a result of the fact that one vehicle forces another off the road. Previously it was not possible, in that case, to institute a claim against the MVA Fund. But clause 7 (2) now makes it possible to claim if damage is suffered through the culpable or unlawful driving of a motor vehicle which is unidentified or not insured; i.e. if this measure is accepted it will therefore also be possible to claim even if there was no contact and even if that vehicle is unidentified and has sped away. It is a big concession to all people involved in motor traffic.

We also find that in future it will also be possible for the Ministry of Transport, in consultation with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, to look after the handling of the proceeds of claims. In connection with clause 32 (1) (b) which makes it possible, in terms of clause 21, for the proceeds of that claim to be handled, I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister also to extend it to clause 7 (2), so that all possible compensation can be included in this. In addition I want to ask him— not now on this occasion, but in the course of time, as experience teaches them how to handle this matter—to consider making provision for an annuity to be purchased with these funds. My reason is that one can then earn considerably more interest with an investment than when it is, for example, paid into a guardian’s fund.

We would also like to discuss the control, administration and handling of claims. The hon. member for Green Point raised the point about clause 7 (1) (d). I told him I would argue with him further about this matter. I made the statement that it was not necessary for the insurance companies and claimants to pay attention to unauthorized interference on the (part of the administrator of the MVA Fund. I base my argument on the fact that in terms of clause 27 of this measure—the old measure also had the same provision—a claim can be instituted only against an authorized insurer. In other words, there is no claim against the MVA Fund.

Hymie, you were not listening again !

Sir, that is of course the problem with the United Party. They make wild statements in this House. They will never acknowledge that they were wrong, and it is broadcast to the world that they stampeded us here. But I just ask the hon. member to note that clause 7 (1) (d) of the measure before us empowers the MVA Fund to handle or settle certain claims or to institute legal proceedings, etc. My statement was that the administrator of the fund could not, in terms of that clause, have interfered in the relationship that develops between the insurers and the insured person. He could not. It was unauthorized and therefore he no longer is where he was. That is the point. The insurance company should have obtained an interdict against him. Let the hon. member look at clause 27. He is a legal man and he ought to know that there is no legal bond whatsoever between the insured person and the MVA Fund. But now such a legal bond is in fact being created in clause 7 (2). This is only in the case of uninsured vehicles and hit-and-run accidents. But to remove all doubt for the hon. member I should like to move in the Committee Stage, with the permission of the hon. the Deputy Minister, that we consider inserting in clause 7 (1) (d), after the word “claims”, the words ‘against him”. There will consequently be no doubt about what claims are at issue.

I agree completely with that and I shall support it.

The argument, which I have just raised, still stands firm. This side of the House is also entitled to discuss control with the Deputy Minister. Therefore we would very much like to see powers given to the Controller and Auditor-General to audit the MVA Fund’s books and table statements here. If necessary— and this will probably be the case—those documents must also be referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Hear, hear!

You are too late in saying “Hear, hear!“. In addition I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider, with respect to the investment of funds—and this is not for the reasons hon. members opposite may think—appointing a departmental committee, an experienced group of people, to assist the Secretary with the investment. I want to emphasize that the Secretary will not be bound to follow that advice. And why not? Because if the hon. the Deputy Minister introduces the amendment that documents must be submitted to the Controller and Auditor-General—and I want to emphasize this point —we then make the Secretary the accounting officer. The accountability is them also taken via the Secretary of the Department to the Deputy Minister and the Minister. In other words, hon. members opposite will then be able to table all their discussions here. I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s opinion in connection with the possibility of such an advisory committee, which will be concerned with the investment of funds. I am thinking of a person such as the Registrar of Financial Institutions, together with some or other experienced person in the Department of Transport and also other persons from other departments who deal with this kind of matter. With this I conclude, and I should very much like to obtain the humble acknowledgement of the hon. member for Green Point to the effect that he did not read this measure, as far as those two clauses are concerned.

Mr. Speaker, I intend to reply to various points made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat during the course of my speech. At the commencement I would like to say to him that he, too, as is the case with us, sees a great many weaknesses in this Bill, and we welcome some of the suggestions he has made, more particularly since they have been made on this side of the House, not only during this session in previous debates, but also in previous years. We expect that the hon. member will vote for our amendments when we move them in the Committee Stage.

I believe that a consolidation Bill is always welcome. My only regret is that in this particular instance the Minister did not take the opportunity of eliminating some of the many weaknesses that have come to light in the operation of the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act in previous years.

I will deal with some of those weaknesses which we could have eliminated and which we can still eliminate in handling this particular measure. One of the first ones that comes to mind, which is very fresh in our minds, is that dealing with the control of existing investments, the procedure involved and the obvious weaknesses in their control. I would also like to deal with the matter of premiums, commissions, and the cost of this Fund. The handling of claims, and the investigation and settlement of claims are some of the other matters I would like to deal with as well as the extension of the cover, which could have been extended by the mere inclusion of a word.

I believe that one of the weaknesses of the Bill before us is that it appears to me that it has been put before us without there having been sufficient consultation with the authorities concerned. I am convinced in my own mind that the insurance experts outside the consortium have not been consulted in the preparation of this Bill. Perhaps the hon. the Deputy Minister felt that it was not necessary to consult people outside the existing consortium. But I believe that it is more than necessary because they still retain their knowledge gathered over many years. I am certain in my own mind, too, on having read the Bill, that he has not consulted at any great length with the legal profession which is more au fait with matters of this sort and the handling of claims. I am convinced in my own mind, too, on having read the system of reporting claims, that he has certainly not consulted at any great length with insurance assessors whose job it is to investigate claims of this nature.

With these remarks I should just like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister of what has happened in the past, why this legislation became necessary in the past and why we welcome the consolidation now. The hon. the Minister of Transport has said that he has done the country a favour by amending the existing Act and introducing this under a consortium after the Parity and Auto Protection scandals. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister and that side of the House that there would have been none of these problems with the previous insurance companies if the Government department responsible had been doing its job in the first place. This is what caused the Parity and the Auto Protection problem.

That accusation you must lay at the door of the United Party. In 1942 they brought Parity in.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister said something about 1942 and that we then brought Parity in. Parity did not exist in 1942.

You opened the door for Parity.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants a debate on this level, I am quite happy to have one with him. Let us look at this a little more closely Parity did not exist in 1942 at all, but what happened was that the authorities concerned could have stopped what happened in Parity and Auto Protection long before it happened.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am merely replying to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Order! No, the hon. member must not allow himself to be diverted from the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, then I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister, too will keep to the points that I am making. Mr. Speaker, let me than say in closing on this particular matter that it would never have been necessary if the department concerned had done its job. In dealing with the Bill itself. I want to say that I will come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s handling of this particular fund in a few moments. I do not intend to raise again the issues raised by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the investments, but I should like to point out one or two other matters in relation to this, because they are material to this particular Bill, since the MVA Fund will control its investments as in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked questions in regard to the Motor Vehicle Fund every year since I have been in Parliament. I have had to do so, because no reports have been available and this is the only way in which I could obtain the relative information. In the course of these questions one or two interesting things came to light. I hope that these things will be avoided in the new Bill. This is the whole purpose of the remarks I wish to make. For instance, in the 1968-’69 insurance year the fund invested with the Trust Bank …

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect …

Order ! The hon. member can come back to the administration on a later occasion. He can use all that material on another occasion. He must now deal with the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, when can I use the material in regard to the administration of the Fund if I cannot use it in the discussion on this Bill which deals with the investments of this Fund?

Sit down.

Why don’t you jump in the lake?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am merely pointing out that this new Bill will now take over the investments of this Fund and that it is interesting to see that R4½ million of the present Fund is held with building societies …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill. He is not allowed to deal with the administration of the Fund now.

Mr. Speaker, may I have your guidance on this matter? Clause 7 (1) (h) of the Bill before us directs that the moneys of the Fund shall be invested in a manner determined by the Minister. What the hon. member is doing, is to indicate the manner in which the Minister has so invested the money and whether there should not be any restrictions under this particular clause so as to prevent that type of investment.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member to discuss that aspect and he went almost too far. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to you that this is not an amending Bill; this is a new Bill, which repeats all the other Bills. If you will refer to clause 7, Sir, you will see that it contains several powers in regard to the MVA Fund. And the hon. member was actually dealing with these powers contained in this Bill.

I shall take this into consideration, but the hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

On a point of order, Sir, I should like to have your ruling on this matter, Mr. Speaker. We are dealing with the Second Reading of this Bill, in terms of which powers are being conferred upon the Minister in regard to the, provision and disposal of the moneys in that Fund. I suggest, Sir, that one of the principles of this Bill which we are entitled to debate during the Second Reading is the manner in which the moneys under that Fund may be used, and the powers of the Minister in that regard.

“May be used”.

Yes, Sir, but we are entitled to debate the manner in which these moneys may be used.

“May be used”; that is quite right.

Sir, when we have a precedent to show how these moneys have been used—and this is the question of a principle we are debating here—surely the hon. member is entitled to say that in the past, under similar powers, a certain position prevailed and what we are asking, Sir, is that the Minister shall not administer this Fund in the future in the manner in which it has been done in the past. [Interjections.] This is in passing; he adduces this as evidence.

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to rise on a point of order and then make a speech. I have given my ruling.

I am addressing you on a point of order, Sir, in regard to the Second Reading of this Bill.

Order! I have given my ruling. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr.Speaker, may I then put it to you this way.

This new Bill takes over a Fund, the MVA Fund, constituting many millions of rands. The figure is probably in excess of R100 million. This new Bill takes over that figure. What I am saying to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that under the Act, which this Bill now replaces—this Bill now takes over the Fund under the previous Act—certain funds were invested with certain organizations, under the authority of the Minister.

The hon. member will get all those replies.

I should like to have the replies, better replies than I have had in previous years. Mr. Speaker, what I suggest is that this Fund should make far more use of building society investments than has been the case in the past for the simple reason that when money is invested with building societies it can then be better used for such things as housing, and so forth. Since this is public money that is being used, I believe that we are entitled to make this request to the hon. the Minister. At the present time R4½million of this fund is invested in building societies; R16½ million is invested in banks; R2 million is invested in municipalities and R4½ million is invested in the private sector with which I shall not deal because it has been dealt with at length. What I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that it is, I think, beholden upon him to invest public money in public institutions or any institution where it would be of benefit to the public. I can think of no better institutions than the building societies, of which the Minister seems to make very little use in the handling or the investment of these funds.

The best interest.

Then I would like to raise another point with the hon. the Minister. In the year ending 1971this fund had received no less than R124 million, nearly R125 million. Out of that it paid claims totalling R79 million. It had outstanding claims—and this is for the year ending April, 1971—of R54 million odd, nearly R55 million. In addition to that it had earned interest of roughly R18 million. If one takes the claims paid and the estimate of the outstanding claims, one arrives at a figure which is almost equal to the amount of premiums received since the inception of the fund during that same period. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me in that regard since those are his figures. Where the hon. the Deputy Minister and I will immediately cross swords is on the fact that on a previous occasion when I criticized the amount of outstanding claims, he said that these claims were those estimated for two years ahead, because of prescription rights under the Act.

The hon. member must deal with the Bill; he is now dealing with the administration of the old Act.

With respect, Sir, the amount of funds in the Act has to do with the Bill. It is all part of the Bill, and I am asking the hon. the Minister how this is administered. Under clause 10 the whole administration of this matter is dealt with. I would like to point out to the Minister the weaknesses and where this can be improved upon. I am trying to keep to the Bill in this manner and I am trying to assist the Minister by showing him how this can be done. For this reason I am pointing out how these funds are made up. On a previous occasion when I dealt with this matter with the hon. the Minister, he told me that the figure for outstanding claims was in respect of two years hence because the Bill allowed for a two year prescriptive period on claims. That is perfectly correct.

Outstanding claims?

Yes, outstanding claims.

The expected outstanding claims.

No, this is the point that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. This is in the Bill. The hon. the Minister says that this is in respect of expected claims. What I am saying to the hon. the Minister is that this is not so The figure for estimated claims is arrived at in respect of claims actually registered against the consortium; it is estimated what those claims will amount to. This is what I am coming to. What I am saying to the hon. the Minister—and this is the point I am making—is that this is basically where he was wrong in the first instance. If he is not wrong, this is the first insurance practice I have heard of anywhere in the world where that is the position. What happens …

Will the hon. member come back to the Bill now?

What I am saying to the hon. the Minister, Sir, is that when claims are dealt with, the figure must be far more accurate than it has been in the past. It certainly is inaccurate now. I believe this is completely in line with the Bill because it is in line with the administration and the handling of claims. I think it is dealt with in clause 7 (d) which says that the consortium handles the settlement of claims. I want to say to the Minister that on his figures alone it is shown that he has produced an estimate which has increased by 300 per cent over the previous year’s estimate, where accidents in that year were certainly no more than 10 percent higher than in the previous year. This Bill gives the fund the right to set premiums. He has said on previous occasions that these premiums may have to be increased if the present accident rate continues. I can assure him in this regard that before the threat that the premiums may have to be increased is carried out, the public will demand a far better reckoning of its accounts than it has got in the past.

I would like to deal now with one or two other matters in the Bill. The first one is that the management, according to the Minister’s reply to me this morning, will handle mainly the uninsured or unidentified motor vehicle claims, which means that the Consortium will be handling claims where the vehicle is insured or the owner is identifiable. I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister how many of the people handling uninsured vehicle claims are officials with training in insurance. The

Minister has told me that they do not employ assessors. I would like to know how they investigate claims if no assessors are employed. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, too, whether he bears in mind that when insurance companies investigate these claims …

You will find the answer in clause 6 (2).

That hon. member does not even know what we are talking about. Sir, the consortium companies settle their claims, according to the Minister, but as the hon. member for Green Point has pointed out, they bear no portion of the cost at all. Experience has shown that the settlement of claims by the Consortium is certainly not what it should be and what it has been in the past. The reason for this is very simple indeed. The reason is that these companies do not have to bear any portion of the claims and therefore the investigation of claims is not quite as thorough as it would be if they had to bear the cost. I would like to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that this Bill does not preclude him from seeing that claims are better handled. I hope that the system that has been used in the past will be abandoned, because claims are certainly not being handled properly at the present time.

By whom?

By any of the Consortium companies or by the Fund itself. That is so simply because, as I said just now, the Fund has no trained officials and the Consortium companies have no financial interest in the outcome of the claim. In fact, the less money they spend on investigating a claim, the better they do, because the cost of investigation comes out of the amount that they receive from the Fund to cover their administration charges. Sir, I said on a previous occasion that the Fund was making excessive profits and the hon. the Minister severely criticized me for saying this. He criticized me at the time, but shortly thereafter he reduced the amount of commission received by companies to cover administrative charges. Obviously, therefore, I must have been correct and the Minister must have been wrong. I believe that we are quite entitled to be highly critical of the handling of this Motor Vehicle Insurance Fund, because public money is involved and the public is certainly entitled to a better handling of the Fund than we have at the present time.

Sir, there are one or two other matters that we intend to deal with in the Committee Sage. They are technical issues. There is no reason, as far as we can see, why mechanical failure should not be added to the liabilities of the Fund. We believe that it should be included, because mechanical failure if often used as an excuse in an accident. The excuse is used that the brakes failed and it is very difficult for the innocent victim to disprove this statement. We believe that it would be a simple matter to add mechanical failure to the liabilities of the Fund. We also believe—and we will deal with this at some length in the Committee Stage—that the Consortium must in fact include all insurance companies in South Africa and not only a selected few. When the Consortium was introduced, the hon. the Minister said that insurance companies were making it difficult for the public to get insured, and of course, he was perfectly correct. In this respect I would like to remind the Deputy Minister that some of those very companies that were making it difficult for the public to get insured are part and parcel of the Consortium; they were not excluded. For that reason I believe that there can be no excuse for not adding all registered insurers to this Consortium. A further point is that over the years one has not been able to obtain the actual cost to the consortium companies which are running this fund. We cannot obtain this because they are private companies. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is about time that this was made available to us because it is public money that they are using. We should know whether they are in fact employing all the funds paid into their coffers for the running of Motor Vehicle Act insurance. From my information this is certainly not so. Therefore I still remain convinced, as I was some time ago, that the amount paid to the consortium companies is in excess of what it should be. But we can do no more than continue to plead as we have pleaded in the past. Now we have a new Bill and I hope that the hon. the Minister has seen the error of his ways and that he will improve upon the weaknesses we have pointed out by adding, for instance, to the consortium by including all registered insurance. This would be a favour to the public who will get better service and whose claims will be attended to in a better way. We intend to move amendments in the Committee Stage, as the hon. member for Green Point has stated. We believe that with this measure, a better Bill could in fact result from our deliberations, one which will be of greater service to the public and operate with far greater efficiency than has been the position in the past.

I have a problem with the hon. members opposite. They said they were going to agree to this Second Reading, and they did so, and in spite of that both of those speeches were aimed at doing only one thing, namely to sow suspicion in respect of the control of this Fund. That is all those speeches were concerned with.

We seek improvements.

They were aimed at sowing suspicion in the minds of the premium payers, the motor vehicle owners, and those people to whom claims accrue, in regard to the correct handling of this fund. The hon. member for Port Natal said he welcomed this Bill, but we had omitted to remove the shortcomings from the previous Act. He said shortcomings existed in regard to investments, the cost of settling claims and the period it took to settle claims, but he did not make any positive suggestion as to what was to be done in regard to these investments. He went on to claim that the insurance agents and those conversant with insurance had not been consulted when this Bill was drafted. After all, he knows that there are 16 members of the consortium. They represent some of the most important insurance companies in South Africa.

That is not correct.

He knows that they also have a committee which consults and advises the executive of the Fund in rotation, and which assists in the administration of the Fund. But, in spite of that, he simply made the statement here that they had not been consulted, He went on to make the statement that there had been no consultation with the law society.

What committee is that?

It seems to me as though the hon. member is very confused in regard to the committees, but I shall come to him in a moment. Then he said we should also have consulted the various assessors. I want to ask this question : On whose behalf is he speaking here; for whom is he speaking here? I shall have to indicate what the experience has been in regard to outside assessors, as a result of what he said here a moment ago. Then he went on to say the following, and I want hon. members to take cognisance of this. He said we had to invest more funds with the building societies, but then he simply remarked in passing that we had to remember that so many millions had been invested with the Trust Bank.

He said with the banks.

No, he mentioned the name of the Trust Bank specifically, and I can produce evidence to this effect. But why did he do so? Is it perhaps because the Trust Bank is a South African bank? Why did he simply drag it into this matter? [Interjections.] No, you had the opportunity … [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, let us deal first with the hon. member for Green Point, the main speaker. In the first place, he posed the question and said that when we looked at this legislation, it was our duty to ensure that the interests of the motor owners were being promoted, and promoted correctly. That was the first question he posed. And then he linked this to the way these had been promoted in the past, because this legislation is base on the Act of the past. Now I want to point out to him that as a result of the third party insurance legislation, as it existed, and as it is now being recreated and improved, we have, from 1965 to 1971-72, saved the motor owners of South Africa, the people who have to pay premiums, at least R41 416 400 in the form of premiums. I base this statement; on the fact that as far back as 1965 the insurance companies wanted to increase third party insurance by 20 per cent for the first time. If we have regard to the normal trend, this increase would not have stopped at 20 per cent either. It would have increased year after year. But I have made my calculation at 20 per cent for this period.

That saving is rather complicated.

It is not complicated at all. [Interjections.] I want to put the fact on record that we have such an Act, for the hon. member asked us whether the interests of the premium payers, i.e. the shareholders, were being promoted. Now I want to mention this one example to him, namely that a saving of R41 416 400 has been effected here. Now I come to the second point. This is important. We should look at it, and I want to state it again. If we consider the experience in regard to the claims, which the hon. member has misinterpreted to such an extent, as against the premium revenue, we find that the claims amount to much more than the premiums that were paid. I am just going to mention a few examples. I shall take public vehicles in the rural areas, for which the premium is R23 and the claim per motor-car amounts to R36-99. In the cities the premium is R57 and the claim per motor-car amounts to R91-24. And so I could go on and mention Others as well.

Are those figures the hon. the Deputy Minister gave in respect of settled claims or outstanding claims?

These are the average claims over the period 1965-’66 to 1969-70. Now I want to continue. The hon. members over there also made a second statement. They said that the interests of the Shareholders had not been looked after, and to them the shareholders are those people who have to pay the premiums. Their interests have allegedly not been promoted properly. I have now mentioned two examples of how their interests have been promoted. And now they also linked this to the investment policy. They tried to create the impression here that it was not possible to give an account of this Fund, that some of these funds had disappeared or had been misspent. [Interjection.] You say “yes”. Very well, we shall deal with it. I want to state this very positively, because that party moved an official motion in the Other Place to the effect that all these funds should be invested with the Public Debt Commissioner only. The hon. member says “yes”; that is the way it should be?

Fair enough.

That is the way it should be. We have made an analysis: If the funds invested from 1965-’66 up to now had been invested with the public Debt Commissioner, the shareholders, for whom the hon. member is interceding here, would have earned R6 537 270 less in interest. In one respect they say we should look after the shareholders—that is the payment of premiums. Immediately after that they come forward with another statement. Surely one cannot blow hot and cold at the same time.

But I want to go on. The hon. member linked the question of the control having been wrong to a reply in regard to the signature on a cheque. That was the hon. member for Green Point. Let me state the matter very clearly. There was a misapprehension in regard to my reply, and I was under that misapprehension. The hon. member linked this, in the first instance, to the amount of R6 million plus, which, according to him, was invested illegally.

According to the Minister, not according to me.

Wait a minute. I myself admitted in this House that it was illegal. But I also stated in this House—and this he now omits to say— that I had to approve it ex post facto. Now the hon. member tries to create the impression that I did not know anything about it, that I had allegedly not even seen the auditors’ report.

But how can you approve ex post facto something which is wrong?

I am stating this very explicitly. In a previous debate I told the hon. member that I was obliged to approve it ex post facto, because it came to my notice after the investment had been made.

Why did you not cancel it?

The investment had already been made, and it was only signed by the manager, who gave instructions that it should be invested. All cheques should be signed by at least two persons. There was a misunderstanding. I grant him that.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Does the Deputy Minister agree that the investments were illegal in that they were not made with his consent?

Yes.

If so, why did he not call them back instead of approving them?

No, surely I have already indicated very clearly that when the matter came to my notice, and when I was requested to consent to this investment, it had already been made. I invite any member to ascertain that I had signed the original approval. I approved it ex post facto, because I had no alternative. The investment had already been made.

They were good investments.

I want to state this very clearly: The investment was only illegal in terms of the section in the Act which provides that one may invest with financial institutions, building societies and semi-Government institutions, whilst this was not a building society, a financial institution or a semi-Government institution. But I took steps to see whether the security was absolutely in order and whether anything was wrong with it. Therefore the hon. member’s accusation that I am supposed to be incompetent, that I had allegedly not seen the auditors’ report, does not hold water. But what else did he do? He wanted to know whether I would tell him who the auditors were. After all, I have already told the House, in reply to a question put by you the day before yesterday, that I am prepared to submit the auditors’ reports to this House, because there is absolutely nothing wrong with them.

I expect that.

The hon. member may have them. I promised them to him. One of the auditors was a Mr. Du Toit. Now I do not know whether he wants to know who the auditors are in order that he may sow suspicion against them as well.

He also spoke about the commission and tried to bring the matter into this Bill. But during the discussion of the Vote this hon. member was very explicitly told that this was a case where the applicants for a loan offered commission, not to the manager or to outside persons, but to the fund itself. That was the only reason why it was approved at the time. But subsequently—and I want to say this to the hon. member—as a result of the fact that we had seen that a loophole was being created here, that if one permitted commission to be given to the fund, commission could possibly be given in another way as well, the Minister and I considered the matter and decided that no commission in regard to loans was to be granted to the fund or anybody else. But now, after all these things had been said, after all my replies, the hon. member tried to drag in here a matter that had been settled and accepted, merely in order to propagate a half-truth and to make a misrepresentation.

Order! The expression half-truth” is not permissible.

In that case I shall adhere to “a misrepresentation” Sir, and withdraw “half-truth”.

The hon. member referred to there being no parliamentary control. In reply to the hon. member for Bloemfontein West I want to tell the House at once that he and a few of his friends came to discuss the matter with me. I told him I was quite prepared for us to subject the accounts, balance sheets and books of this fund to the supervision of the Controller and Auditor-General. We shall move such an amendment at the Committee Stage.

Thank you.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein West has already asked me for this.

I asked for that a little earlier on.

When was that “a little earlier on”?

Order! May we now proceed with the Bill?

I am dealing with the Bill at the moment. I want to point out two matters at once. In the first place, I want to say that as a result of the experience we have had in regard to investments we have already appointed a committee administratively—this is also the way it is being done in this new Bill. I want the hon. gentlemen to know what committee it is. It consists of the senior Deputy Secretary for the Department of Transport, the Chief Accountant of the Department, the Manager of the MVA Fund and the Registrar of Financial Institutions. That committee has to investigate all investments and applications and then advise the Secretary as to how the investments are to be made. We have specifically included the Registrar of Financial Institutions here. However, I must say that if I am going to incorporate the amendment into the Bill, as I have said, the fund will be placed under the Controller and Auditor-General. In that case hon. members must also accept that in terms of that legislation the Secretary will be the accounting officer who will have to report on the control, investment, etc., of the fund before the Select Committee of this Parliament. Therefore, because he is the accounting officer, I cannot stipulate that such a committee, which is not accountable, will have the final say. I can only use such a committee to advise him, so that he may assess that advice and make his submission to the Minister; for the Select Committee and Parliament would then hold him, as the accounting officer, responsible in regard to that control.

Now I come to the committee about which the hon. member is so concerned and in regard to which he is under such a misapprehension. I want to point out to him that under the old Act there were three committees. The committee which I told him had not met, which did not have any work, is the advisory committee, which is now going to disappear. The consultative committee, for which provision is being made in clause 6 (3) (a) in the new Bill, is still in existence. That committee holds meetings from time to time. I know, for instance, that they are holding a meeting with the executive this afternoon. However, this committee does not advise the Minister; it is an advisory committee to the manager’ to help him. For instance, this is the committee which, in conjunction with the manager, decides what agents are to be readmitted and what agents are not admitted. Therefore it is not a committee which advises the Minister, but its purpose is merely to render assistance to the manager. Does the hon. member agree now?

Yes.

The committee to which I referred on a previous occasion, and which is now being omitted in this measure because it is redundant, does not do any work or would have done overlapping work if it had in fact functioned, is the advisory committee.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? In Hansard, column 5408 of 20th April, 1972,I asked him, “If the work of such a committee, constituted in terms of the provisions of section 25B, was unnecessary and the other committee was appointed in terms of section 1bis …” The Deputy Minister then interjected and said, “The committee was appointed, but it never operated. It held no meetings.” I then asked the Deputy Minister, “Why not?”, and he answered,

“Because there was not enough work for the committee.” The question I want to put to the Deputy Minister is whether he therefore made a mistake by saying that the committee in terms of section 25B was also the one appointed under section 1ter?

I accept that the committee was appointed under section 1bis. However, the advisory committee did not meet. Under the new legislation we have the premiums committee as well. In other words, this committee, which will advise the Minister as to the trends of premiums and as to whether or not they should be increased, etc., will remain in existence.

Now I want to mention a next aspect. The hon. member said the Minister had admitted that the manager had, or had had, too much power, and that we were not putting that matter right in this measure.

However, in this measure the manager is placed specifically under the jurisdiction of the Secretary for the Department, whereas the rest of the staff are members of the staff of the Secretary to the Department.

The Secretary is now the accounting officer who may be called to account, as I have already explained. In other words, we no longer have these extra powers, or powers which may be abused and over which Parliament will have no control. I think the hon. member for Bloemfontein West also stated this case in order to point out that this was a very good improvement on the old Act. The hon. member for Bloemfontein West read clause 32 (1) (b) in conjunction with clause 21 and wanted to know from me whether we would extend it to clause 7, and whether we would consider the possibility that life annuities may be bought. I shall investigate the matter and see what we can do in this regard. This also goes for the guardian’s fund to which the hon. member referred. The hon. member said that clause 7 (1) (d) empowered the fund to settle and handle claims, and he asked us to introduce an amendment in order to make it clear that these were claims made against the fund as such. I am prepared to accept that amendment and to insert the words “made against it” after the word “claims” so that the definition may be clear. In this regard two statements were made by the hon. member. In his criticism the hon. member pointed out that there was a deterioration in the claims that were settled. I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point at once that if there is an accumulation of claims at the moment, it may not be laid at the door of the consortium. In this regard I want to exonerate the consortium. The rate at which claims are settled, rests with the claimant and his legal representatives rather than with the consortium. In fact, the claimant does after all have the right to enforce his claim in court if there is unnecessary delay on the part of the insurance company in handling that claim. Therefore the hon. member should not level that accusation here against the administration, the fund or the consortium; he should rather take a look at what the claimant’s representatives are doing about settling these claims. After all, they do have the right to go to court.

The delay started in 1969.

I want to repeat that that delay is not attributable to the consortium or to the administration of the fund. That delay is attributable to the claimants themselves and to the claimants’ representatives who are handling their claims. They can enforce those claims. In conclusion I just want to place it on record again that the MVA Fund, handles no claims except fund agreement claims. All ordinary claims are handled by the companies themselves. In this regard I must place it on record that as regards the accusation that the manager of this fund had, or still has, too much power, the hon. member for Green Point referred on a certain occasion to an amount which the manager settled after a claim of …

Of approximately R50 000 …

… of R50 000. The hon. member said that the insurance company wanted to pay R50 000, whereas the manager settled it for R100 000. I want to ask hon. members that when they make statements in this House, they should see to it that their facts are correct. I made inquiries in regard to this accusation of the hon. member, and I want to place my findings on record. This claim in Bloemfontein was a summons for R350 000, which had been served on the insurance company. The attorneys of the company concerned made this assessment and arrived at the conclusion that the claim was worth approximately R200 000. The company therefore recommended that the fund should pay in an amount of R150 000 to the court so as to give the claimants the choice of either accepting the amount in question, or proceeding with the action. The insurance company asked the fund to approve the payment of this amount of R150 000. At that stage the fund decided to intervene and see for itself at what amount it could settle the claim. A few days before the trial, the fund succeeded in settling this particular claim for R98 860. The legal costs on the part of the female claimant amounted to R1 000, whereas those of the fund were minimal. In other words, through the discussion of this Bill the hon. member is therefore trying to cast doubts on the control and the actions of the fund. He has put it to this House that there was a claim which the insurers could or would have settled for R50 000, and that the fund had settled it at R100 000. In actual fact, the summons was for R350 000, whereas the insurers wanted to pay in R150 000. Surely that was an absolutely wrong picture; what was presented to this House, was not an honest picture (eerlike prentjie).

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister suggests that I did not give an “eerlike prentjie”. I am quite prepared to say that I gave the information on documents before me. I will check them, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister is correct, I will accept his information. However, I object to the hon. the Deputy Minister saying that I did not give an “eerlike prentjie”.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, but it was a wrong picture which the hon. member presented here in order to sow suspicion against the fund. I just want to put this on record.

The last point I want to mention—and with this I want to conclude—is that this hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Port Natal, wanted to know why we had not consulted the assessors, etc. I want to say that we are making provision in this legislation for an inspectorate. That inspectorate will, as was the case in the past, visit all consortiums and the agencies so as to ensure that they will incur the minimum costs in regard to the settlement of claims. We have already succeeded in persuading them not to make use of outside assessors and attorneys all the time, since it was our experience—to mention just one experience —that a claim was settled for R95 000 and that the legal costs involved amounted to R44 313-55. We are watching the matter closely so as to ensure that the members of the consortium who have to settle and handle these claims, will obtain the necessary advice and the necessary information to do so at the lowest cost possible to the insurers and to the fund and the person to whom the claim is granted, in order that the best administration may be ensured by those means.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In accordance with long-standing practice the amending Bill that came before this House was referred to a Select Committee. I understand that the Select Committee considered all the proposed clauses carefully, and after due deliberation it came forward unanimously with the statutory amendments we have before us now. I am very grateful for that. I hope that the amendments being proposed here today, will lead to better administration of the Water Act.

As a result of experience gained, the development of science and the great demand for the provision of water everywhere in the Republic, it has once again become necessary to amend the Water Act which was promulgated in 1956. As is customary, I shall explain each clause of the proposed amending Bill.

Clause 1 :

As a result of the proposed control over the modification of precipitation as proposed in clause 6, it is necessary to amend paragraph (e) of section 2 in order to make provision for authority for the Minister to exercise the necessary control.

Clause 2:

It is in the public interest and also necessary for more efficient control that certain restrictions should be imposed on the use of private water in areas which are not situated within any Government water control area or subterranean water control area. The right of an owner of land to use private water on the property on which it is found is not interfered with in any way.

The restrictions are only applicable in cases where any person intends using private water on land other than that on which it originates, without a permit from the Minister. In this way it will be possible to prevent already limited water sources from being overtaxed to the detriment of the owner himself as well as owners lower down.

Clause 3:

Here only the wording of subsection 1 of section 23 is being amended in order to facilitate the prosecution of offenders. The prevention of the pollution of our surface and subterranean water is extremely important, and it is probably not necessary to emphasize this further.

Clause 4:

Subsection 6 of section 30 is being deleted and substituted by the insertion of section 30A as proposed in clause 5.

Clause 5 :

My Department of Water Affairs is continually carrying out boring operations throughout the country in order to conduct research into, the incidence of subterranean water. Boring operations are also being carried out on private properties. It is arranged by agreement with the owner concerned that, if more usable water is found than the owner requires for his own needs, the department obtains the right, upon payment of compensation, of utilizing the surplus water for the benefit of towns or other consumers where shortages may be experienced. However, this arrangement does not work well, and it is foreseen that cases may occur where water will have to be expropriated. The Water Act already makes provision for the powers of expropriation in respect of water rights, including subterranean water within Government water control areas or subterranean water control areas. However, it is not practical to declare a control area in order to expropriate water from a single borehole. For this reason the amendment is being proposed.

Clause 6:

The increasing importance of and interest in modification of precipitation necessitate its proper control and planning. Injudicious interference with the natural occurrence of rain, hail, snow, etc., can be harmful in that it may lead to a decrease in rainfall or an increase in the occurrence of hail.

Since modification of precipitation not only holds great promise, but is also a source of some danger and will affect the sphere of private owners to a large extent, the necessary control is being applied in good time in order to ensure that the methods to that end are applied judiciously-

Clause 7 :

This amendment was recommended by the law advisers for technical reasons, since only some and not all the provisions of the Water Act are applied in South-West Africa.

Clause 8 :

This amendment is being effected at the instance of the Treasury and the State Attorney in order to bring about uniformity and to eliminate undesirable deviations from the methods applied by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure in terms of the Expropiration Act of 1965 in obtaining land and rights.

In future the expropriation clauses of the Water Act will therefore, as far as is feasible, agree with the Expropriation Act which is used to acquire land and rights for the State.

Clause 9:

This is no amendment, but at the instance of the law adviser the existing subsection 8 of section 60 is being placed under a separate section in order to separate the transfer of property from expropriation.

Clause 10:

Section 66 of the Water Act authorizes the Minister to assess rates on land supplied with water from Government waterworks and to assess charges in respect of water supplied from such works for other purposes.

By legislation or agreement certain local authorities have acquired rights to the use of public water for which they pay either nothing at all or a minimal amount. The proposed amendment will enable the State, where Government waterworks have been or are being constructed which without any doubt are also to the benefit of such local authorities, to let them pay for the use of water in accordance with the prevailing tariffs.

Examples of Government waterworks which have been or are being constructed for the benefit of local authorities as well, are those of the Bloemhof Dam and the Tugela-Vaal scheme.

Clause 11 :

In the practical application of the present provisions of section 109, it has been found that some consumers of water are so few in number and that their consumption of water is so small that their representation on a water board is not justified. On the other hand, there are large consumers of water who do not have adequate representation on such a board. The proposed amendment will remedy this deficiency.

Clause 12:

This amendment to section 172 is necessary in order to remove all doubt that powers of control in regard to the abstraction and use of subterranean water within a subterranean water control area are vested solely in the Minister.

Clause 13:

The amendment to the long title of the Water Act is necessary in order to cover the activities in connection with weather conditions as well.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that whenever we have a Bill dealing with water affairs, we deal with a subject which is perhaps not only of vital importance, but of cardinal importance to the whole future of our country. Our ideas in regard to water supply and the control of water and the laws controlling water supply in this country are changing as the years go by. We are making provision in this Bill, for example, for the control of water rising on a person’s farm, for subterranean water, and so forth, a Bill which, some 15 or 20 years ago, would not have had a hope of passing through this House. This is the way our ideas have changed.

Mr. Speaker, I think it can be truthfully said that the whole of our Western civilization depends on a pure water supply. If there is no pure water supply, Sir, we could not exist as a Western civilization. It is basic to the whole of our existence as a people, our commerce, our industries, our towns, and our whole existence, Sir, depends on a pure water supply. So I repeat, when we get a Bill before us, Sir, we look at it from the standpoint that we are dealing now with something which is of very vital importance to the whole of the future of our country.

In this Bill before us there are several matters which we can deal with more appropriately during the Committee Stage. I want to deal in passing, though, with the control of water which rises on a person’s farm and which is not being controlled; such a person is limited in the use to which he can put that water once it has passed beyond the boundaries of the farm on which it rises, although he may have one, farm holding. If his farm comprises several farms in so far as the title deeds and the diagrams are concerned, which are registered separately in the Surveyor-General s office, then there is a limitation on the use he can make of that water on the other farms although the farms may be farmed as one holding. There is a limitation in regard to the use of that water on those other farms when the water rises only on one of those particular holdings.

Then there is the question of underground water supplies, Mr. Speaker. We are attempting steps to deal with the question of pollution of underground water supplies, as well as the fact that the Government itself has now virtually taken control over these supplies. In this respect I want to say, Sir, that my mind goes back many years ago in this House when an attempt was made from time to time I remember a previous Minister of Water Affairs telling us in reply to inquiries made from this side of the House—to find the natural laws which control the question of underground water supplies. Our knowledge even of the water in the formations in the vicinity of the Witwatersrand, and so forth, was very limited in those days, and today our knowledge of underground water supplies has gone much further. There is still tremendous ground for development to acquire further knowledge on that subject, and no doubt, as time goes on, we will change our laws so that we will once more take into review the whole question of underground water supplies and our laws to provide that they shall not be polluted, even to a greater extent than what we are doing here, and probably to bring them under a much more rigid control in so far as the Government itself is concerned.

The whole tendency today, Mr. Speaker, is for the State to take over more and more of the control of water supplies whether they are running in channels, natural water courses, or whether they are underground. But, Sir, we come in this Bill to a different issue altogether, and that is the question of what is being called weather modification now. The State now comes into the picture of dealing with the weather in the form of precipitation, or in the form of weather which may result in precipitation, and the State now comes in at this early stage, Sir, to control even that aspect.

We may have to go a very much longer distance also along that road, Sir, as our knowledge grows. There is a good deal of knowledge here and there, and I want to say that in the Select Committee we were given some very important information, some very important evidence, from people who have studied these matters and who are in a position to submit to us that evidence. In the light of all that has happened in the Select Committee, in the light of all my reading before and since then, and in the light of our own laws dealing with water affairs here in South Africa, I am not sure that it would not be better for the whole question of weather modification to be put within the cupboard of one Bill and not brought in as a section of a measure such as we have before us today. That is not my business. The hon. the Minister, or the Cabinet, or whoever is responsible, will no doubt apply their minds to it, but I will like to urge the Minister to re-think the issue. That is not to say that I think that this Bill should not be proceeded with. I think the hon. the Minister is well aware of the fact that I am on his side in trying to get a quick passage of this Bill, in so far as parliamentary procedure allows it, and that no stumbling block will be put in the way of the passage of this measure from this side of the House. I simply say that if there is to be re-thinking, and if in fact the Minister should require some authority from the Cabinet besides that at a later stage—maybe not this year, but maybe in a year or two—this question of weather modification has assumed such importance that it would be better to be dealt with as a separate measure or a separate Bill before Parliament. This Bill could perhaps embody anything that is good in the present measure plus anything additional that he or his colleagues may require and we can then bring an all-embracing measure before Parliament. I for one would welcome such a step when the time comes. Then we can have a look at it untrammelled by considerations of the control of water in other aspects. In this particular matter the Minister has come, quite rightly, in the early stages of weather modification as a commercial activity and has said that steps will be taken to control it. He said that we are not going to allow people who, for whatever reason it may be, believe they can make a commercial proposition out of selling rain-making, as it is usually called, to farmers and other interested people and by exploring those possibilities for commercial gain. From the evidence which was before us it was clear that this was already taking place. I want to be quite clear that I am not criticizing a man who claims that he can for gain make rain or make anything else, provided that it is between the four corners of the law. As long as there is no law to stop commercial firms from advertising that they could make rain if people were prepared to pay for it, they either paid for what they got or they were dissatisfied. Who of us is not dissatisfied with what we get sometimes, when we have paid for it? Rainmaking was not something which was unique in so far as the market place of the world is concerned, but the dangers which were inherent in permitting this commercial practice to grow, were very grave dangers indeed. So I say I think the hon. the Minister was right. The members of the Select Committee and all of us on this side of the House believe that the Minister was right to come at this early stage and say that rainmaking or weather modification will be under control from now on.

At this stage we came across the position that the present forecasts are primarily made to safeguard the navigation of our aircraft. It is for the benefit of aircraft. The present weather forecasts the scientific data which are collected, and most of the experiments which are being carried out are designed to deal with the safety of our aircraft. Aircraft which are likely to meet tempestuous conditions and storms, aircraft that would like to know what kind of weather they will be meeting, aircraft which ought not to be allowed to take off, aircraft which ought not to be allowed to and, are all dependent on the weather forecast. All that is vital to human life and it is not only vital to the civil aircraft, but also to our military aircraft, our private aircraft, and, in fact, to all aircraft.

Here we have the weather forecasts, and here again my mind goes back to some years ago when I asked in this House whether we could not get a parallel forecasting system for the farming community, because we felt that it would be of great value if such a system of weather forecasting, on parallel lines to what they have for farmers in Great Britain, could be devised here in South Africa. But, Sir, at that time the then Minister of Transport was very chary about the matter. He did not want to have anything which could in any way interfere with weather forecasting for the purpose of the safety of air craft. May I say at this stage, Sir, if I may touch on a lighter matter for a moment, that my sympathy in regard to weather forecasting goes out to a lady I read about the other day, who was told over the wireless, in the weather forecast, that “the weather tomorrow morning will be slightly cloudy and overcast”. She telephoned the weather forecasting people the next day at midday and said: “Will you come and collect ‘the six inches of slightly cloudy and overcast’ that I have in front of my house?” You see, Sir, the forecasting can go a little wrong. The idea behind this message was that the good lady had had six inches of snow; that was what she was referring to as “the six inches of slightly cloudy and overcast”. Here we come up against one of the main issues in weather forecasting—one of the dangers.

When once we start dealing with these natural forces and, as we put it, attempt to modify them, in what direction are they likely to be modified? If the Minister of Transport is concerned with this matter from the point of view of the safety of aircraft, then I want to say that the Minister of Water Affairs is also justified in being concerned about this matter from the point of view of agriculture and commerce and industry right throughout the whole of South Africa. If there was a tendency at one stage for the existence of a slight conflict of interests or a difference of opinion, then I want to pay a tribute to the two departments that got together like reasonable men and hammered out a satisfactory solution, so that we could come back from the Select Committee with a Bill which had been unanimously adopted by the Select Committee.

This is one of the cases where, if I may say so to the Minister, sending a Bill to a Select Committee before the Second Reading has been very well justified indeed, because it could have led to a very acrimonious debate here in the House if it had not been referred to a Select Committee. But that has all been saved because two responsible Government departments were able to sit down and go to the Select Committee with an agreed proposal which was unanimously accepted. The Department of Transport and the Department of Water Affairs, each with their responsibilities to the citizens of South Africa, neither acting in an irresponsible or capricious manner, have been able to come together, with the result that today we have this Bill before us. Sir, let us have a look at this question of weather modification. For the purpose of weather modification, we have to take into account virtually four things. We have to take into account the humidity, the temperature, the air pressure and wind. Those are the four features. Subject to variations in those various features, weather modification can take place successfully or it can fail. With all the modifications it can be partly successful or very successful, as the case may be.

Sir, when you take a country like the U.S.A., where experiments are not only very far advanced, but where vast sums of money are being expended, you find, according to a document that I have here from the U.S.A., that you get storm damage running to the extent of over 1000 million dollars per annum. Hail, curiously enough, causes far more damage than even the cyclones which ravage parts of America from time to time. Sir, a country that is suffering like that can obviously afford to pay big sums of money for the purpose of investigating what can be done to stop clouds which are producing the beginning of a big hail-storm.

But, Sir, we are dealing with natural forces of which we know very little and which, along certain guide-lines, they can forecast in the United States, but when once some natural happening goes beyond those guide-lines, then they are just as much at a loss in America as we are in this country. Only two or three years ago one of the largest hail-storms they have ever had in the United States hit a farming area. They have now got in cold storage, in a museum, perpetually frozen, the largest hail-stone that is known ever to have fallen in the United States, a hailstone which was 17½ inches in circumference and weighed over 1½ lb. That was one hail-stone. Admittedly they went and picked the largest and, as I say, they kept it. They actually dissected it to see how it was made up; to look at its structure and so forth. This was one of a mass of hail-stones of more than normal size. Sir, here is the difficulty in which we find ourselves when we are dealing with this particular Bill, and it is one of the reasons why you will find, if you compare this Bill which has come from the Select Committee with the Bill which was sent to the Select Committee, that a very important new clause has been put in to see that what I am going to call “the innocent bystander” is insured against damage, from experiments being carried out in regard to weather modification or the use of weather modification techniques.

Sir, if weather modification experiments are being carried out and, for whatever the reason may be, the necessary data that is being radioed back to earth from our instruments, does not reach our computers, what happens to the innocent bystander who suffers damage because of this? What is happening at the present time is that instruments are sent aloft to radio back to earth temperature readings, humidity, windage, atmospheric pressure and so forth; all that is coming back to earth; it is being dealt with at a central point and computerized, and our officials can tell us today whether under those circumstances at that time the seeding of the clouds is likely to produce rain. But, Sir, if these natural forces, for some reason or other, do not know anything about our computer, if they fail to get in touch with our instruments and just go it alone as they have been doing throughout the many millions of years and they clash with one of our experiments and we get a hailstorm in which we get hail-stones weighing 1½ lb., what happens then to the innocent bystander? What happens to the man who has got his crop of fruit nearly ready to pick, who has been looking at the thunderstorm and hoping that it will pass over and then gets hit by that kind of hail-storm? This is one of the things, Sir, that has been worrying us in the Select Committee; it is one of the things that worries everybody who has anything to do with weather modification. Instead of getting rain, you get a hail-storm. Admittedly, very often it can be avoided.

Looking at the other side of the coin, weather modification could perhaps mean the precipitation of hail in the form of sleet, or rain, so that you break up your hail-storm; that can happen, but it is a dicey undertaking at the best of times with our present knowledge. We do not know, Sir, when we start off with an experiment, whether we can say for certain: “Under those conditions Nature will not interfere and you will get rain.” If we cannot say that, then what we must say is: “Under those conditions Nature may interfere and you will get snow perhaps, or you will get hail perhaps.”

Sir, in papers that I have got from the United States, there is a document dealing with the question as to what we are doing in the world at large with some of our experiments, not our experiments in weather modification but some of our experiments in regard to the use of nuclear energy. There is a very, very serious school of thought in the United States today which say that nuclear energy is building up such an envelope round the world that we are starting to shut out some of the sun’s rays, and that we may be turning the earth colder. It has happened in the past; it has happened in historical times, It happened in about 500 B.C. or 550 B.C. We know that passes across the mountains of central Europe, which had been open as trade routes for 1200 years, were closed by heavy snow within a matter of half a century and remained closed for nearly half a century thereafter.

Now they were not doing any nuclear experiments in those days and we do not know how it came about, but this is what I want to emphasize. We do not know why it happened, but what happened then can happen again and if it happens to coincide with the time when we are ourselves polluting the atmosphere with nuclear atoms or atmospheric atoms or atoms which are created as the result of nuclear explosions or from any other cause, then we may be merely accentuating something which is already in being, which has been modified and has remained at a level, a ceiling which has never yet been brought to our attention. I am very doubtful myself whether in fact in some of these matters we know where the lethal ceiling can be put. The scientists admit that in some respects they cannot do so.

Are we in fact today, through the air we breathe, polluting the atmosphere to such an extent that we are beginning to make the earth grow colder, because we are shutting out the rays of the sun through pollution? Are we creating a situation where, without our knowing, without our doing so deliberately, we are allowing the forces of nature to participate in our experiments for rainmaking, and we then find that we are clashing with nature, and instead of creating something beneficial we create something which can cause the utmost havoc? We know what these enormous downpours of rain can do. We know what cyclones can do. Those are natural features.

The difficulty which we are facing is that we are dealing with these vast forces of nature, but we do not yet know the rules which can muzzle them, the rules which can put a bridle on them. We are trying to use those forces for our own good, but let us be careful that in doing so we do not find ourselves in the position where we unleash forces of which we do not know the rules of behaviour, the natural laws which guide them. So we say from this side of the House that we appreciate the fact that the Minister has brought forward this Bill. This is the time to deal with these experiments which private people are undertaking for gain. The Government will now undertake the experiments and it will control those which are being undertaken by other people through the issue of permits and licences. Our goodwill and our good wishes go with the Minister, in what, if it is successful, can mean so much to this country, which is subject to periodic droughts and which has such vast low rainfall areas. If this Bill is successful in finding the means, if it is the instrument to get the means whereby the Department of Water Affairs and its scientists will eventually be in the position where they can provide material quantities of rain for certain areas, even in the area of the big catchments of our larger dams, which from time to time need refilling, not to mention widespread rains over the whole country, but good rains in selected areas, think of the immense value to South Africa in terms of money, let alone other things. These are the things to which we are looking forward.

We believe it is possible; we believe we have scientists second to none and we believe that the Department of Water Affairs, with the control in the hands of the Minister in collaboration with the Minister of Transport, so that there is no threat or hurt or harm to our air services—we believe that it is then possible for South Africa to achieve great good and great benefit, but we issue a warning and say : Be careful to keep a bridle on these forces, because if you turn them loose, you may and that they become a wild animal which you are unable to control. We support he Second Reading.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my appreciation for the good co-operation of members of the Select Committee in the work in connection with the legislation now before the House. I think the Select Committee was fortunate in having the co-operation of hon. members of the Opposition who are really interested in these matters and who adopt a very positive attitude in this regard. In addition,

I should like to say that it was pleasant for us to co-operate with the heads of a few State departments, and not only with the Secretary for Water Affairs, but also with the Secretary for Transport, in overcoming problems in connection with streamlining this legislation. In regard to the modification of precipitation, the various types of precipitation, as it is worded in this legislation now, we inevitably also paid attention to the activities of the Weather Bureau, which falls under another State department, and in this regard we received the very good co-operation and the kind interest of the gentlemen concerned, and I think their good co-operation helped us tremendously to make progress with this legislation.

Furthermore, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that, since we often find in the changing water situation of South Africa that new problems and situations arise which the existing Water Act does not deal with yet, we appreciate the fact that he is willing to pay the necessary attention to such matters and also shows that he is prepared to introduce the necessary statutory amendments or additions to the existing law in order to be able to control the situation properly from Government level. In this regard I want to refer to clause 2 of this Bill, in which a restriction is introduced on the use and control of private water.

Up to the present time, the position has always been that when someone has a source of water which is labelled as private water, the general maxim applied that he could do with that water what he liked. But now, with the tremendous demand upon the available water sources in our country, which are, of course, limited, the situation has arisen that in terms of the present interpretation of the concept of private water, properties and owners of properties situated in the catchment areas of our important rivers in South Africa, are able to use private water out; of all proportion to the value and limits; of their own properties; that, in terms of the existing legislation, people are able, for example, to take a much greater share of a water source simply because their property happens to be part of the origin of a particular river; and that, by virtue of that very position, such a person is able to take water which, in the past, has in fact always been an important feeder source of a river or a public stream, or even the origin or the source which supplied water works constructed by the State at high cost. Thus it happened that the value of certain properties increased exceptionally, not because, seen from an agricultural point of view, the properties in themselves are so valuable, but because they have private water of great value. The position was that people were able to pump private water into another area even over a watershed, to the detriment of riparian dwellers along the lower reaches of the particular stream or river. Therefore we are grateful that, when this situation arose and was pointed out to the hon. the Minister and his department as something which could give rise to many practical problems in future, and which could also create many problems for the planning of the Department of Water Affairs in respect of the construction of government waterworks, they paid attention to this matter and were even prepared to incur costs in the cases concerned in order to gain the necessary clarity by means of a judgment by the Supreme Court. We are also grateful that in clause 3 of this Bill attention is once again given to the question of the pollution of our water sources. If we look around us we feel that we cannot emphasize enough that this is a matter which should receive very serious attention. When one looks at these streams which one sees first because they are situated nearest to Cane Town, namely the Liesbeeck River and the Elsieskraal River, it strikes one that they are in fact small streams which have a considerable flow during a certain period of the year, but have in fact become rubbish dumps. Sir, I cannot put this strongly enough. They have become dumps for tins, litter and rubbish. It is simply indescribable. Only recently I paid attention to a small section of one of these streams. I said to myself: “This is really a problem to which we ought to pay very serious attention on a wide level.” I therefore think that our schools, our public institutions, local authorities and all possible interested parties ought to pay attention to keeping; these streams clean so that, where there are inevitably vacant tracts of land along such rivers, these areas may be places where one can breath freely, for example in the Peninsula and in Cape Town. These places should become different to what they have become over the years, namely rubbish heaps and dumping grounds for articles which have no value to us. I think that we and our educationists in South Africa have a tremendous task to educate and to make our people, our children, not only our White children but our Coloured and Bantu children as well, aware of our duty and responsibility to prevent the pollution of the environment and especially to prevent the pollution of our water sources. We are grateful that in this Bill this Minister is once again paying attention to this matter.

In regard to the matter on which the hon. member for South Coast had a good deal to say, I want to associate myself with him in saying that we welcome it that there are private institutions in our country that are willing to spend the money and to initiate undertakings to make modification of precipitation possible. I just want to point out that in this piece of legislation we had to deal with the definition “modification of precipitation” because the Department of Water Affairs and the Water Act deal exclusively with water, the formation of water, the supply of water and the origin of water, and because, in this Bill, we confine ourselves to the modification of precipitation, the origin of water in all its forms, the prevention of hail, the prevention of snow, etc. Therefore we link up very closely with the activities of the Weather Bureau, but leave weather modification, weather forecasting, possible control over storm conditions, etc., as an activity for the Weather Bureau. In addition, Sir, I want to say that we as a Committee greatly appreciated the fact that we were able to make use of the services of the officials of the Weather Bureau and of the knowledge they have acquired over the years. We are pleased to have been able to make use of these services, and I think that we have incorporated the fruits of their labours in this Bill as far as possible. It is good that control will remain, and in this regard I want to associate myself with the hon. member for South Coast; we think it is highly necessary, and definitely not an unnecessary step of the Department of Water Affairs and of the hon. the Minister, that, since we are entering upon a new field and new activities here and are applying, I almost want to say, untested methods in many cases, the hon, the Minister should exercise proper control, that he should use the knowledge which will become available in the course of time, even, knowledge from overseas which may be placed at our disposal, not only to guide those activities with the necessary measures of control which he will now have, but also, where necessary, to encourage them. But we must also ensure that the risks and dangers involved do not get out of hand. We really regard the insertion of this chapter into the Water Act as a positive step. Since we are a country with very limited water resources, we can only trust that we will not only experience scientific development and technical development in this sphere in the course of time, but will in this way also possibly be able to make a very important contribution to our country, to the development of our water resources and even to the stabilization of our agricultural industry.

In conclusion I just want to bring another matter in regard to the Water Act, and especially the administration of justice in regard to the Water Act, to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Until 1956, water cases were mainly in the hands of a Water Court. There are good reasons why this was changed. But bearing in mind that the Water Act and disputes in connection with the Water Act, water affairs and water rights are a highly specialized section of the administration of justice. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the present arrangement is completely satisfactory. I have been told —and I do not want to cast any reflection on any judge—that a judge in the Supreme Court once asked what spray irrigation was and how it worked. If this happens, such an hon. judge is in reality indicating that he has to deal with a matter falling in a sphere which is relatively strange and unknown to him. Therefore I just want the hon. the Minister to consider whether we should not think of establishing a panel of water court judges in order to ensure that when an hon. judge has to give judgment on a dispute about water, that judge will be somebody who has the practical knowledge and experience to give a judgement on the case concerned. This may also help the public by inspiring in them the confidence that, when people go to the Supreme Court with such cases, and unfortunately they have to go to the Supreme Court in most cases, there will be somebody who is fully conversant with and has the necessary knowledge of this ’specialized division of the law. I am mentioning this in a very good spirit. Perhaps we can improve on this level.

Sir, I conclude by thanking the hon. the Minister and the department for this legislation and for their willingness to come forward with it. I want to express the confidence that with this we are making an important contribution in regard to water, water resources and the development of our water resources in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, both gentlemen who have spoken, were members of the Select Committee. I want to express my sincere thanks to members of the Select Committee, and also to the gentlemen who have participated in this debate, for paying the attention Which they did to this legislation. In addition, I want to express my thanks to the officials and other persons who came forward with important points of view and made it easier for the Committee to present the legislation before us unanimously.

†The hon. member for South Coast referred to the underground water situation. The hon. member quite reightly, referred to the situation as it was many years ago. Of course, I do agree with the hon. member. With the knowledge which was at our disposal 10 to 15 years ago, we would have been very cautious to interfere with the underground situation. But in the meantime, our knowledge has increased to such an extent that we can, with more confidence, today apply our minds to this problem. We have the co-operation of many people in the scientific field as well as at the universities, and as the hon. gentleman will know, we have the special co-operation from one of our universities to apply themselves to this problem by instituting a new chair of hidrogeology. We believe that in years to come we shall be in a position to judge far more carefully and justly the situation of abstraction from our underground water resources. As for the question of scientific research and the problem we might be taking on our shoulders now with this new development, the development which we have to foresee under this Bill in regard to the introduction of weather modification, I agree with the hon. gentleman. In fact, with our interference we might unleash forces of nature which we might not be able to control. I think the vital question is whether we shall be able to control those forces. But the fact is that we are developing in this new industrial world, and we are being confronted with new issues and new challenges. This is one of the new challenges. We simply cannot allow people to operate in this field without trying to control them. The ideal of this Bill is to control, in the first instance, the people who are trying to do the job for themselves, thereby to try to control the way they will be doing it, and also to try to keep a hand over the methods that will be in use. I do agree with the hon. gentleman: We are feeling our way, but we cannot leave the position as it is. I also do agree that we might find ourselves in a position within a year or two that we will have to come forward with an amending Bill. But then it will be in the best interests of the community. Everybody will understand that in a new field of scientific research and operation we will have to develop along with the scientific research. It might be possible that we will come back again. But if we do come back to this matter again, it will be in the interests of everybody else and I think we will all agree that it should be done timeously,.

Now I must warn that we cannot simply allow people using a permit to operate as they might wish to in future. I think we will watch scientifically the operation in the field very carefully. The idea is to have a committee of scientists to watch the operations in the meantime and also to prescribe the way of operating in this field. We cannot say with certainty today, but time will tell what will happen in future; but I do think that we are coming forward with this Bill timeously in trying to control the fields in future. I believe there are a few companies trying to operate in the meantime, and we must protect the public. On the other hand, we have the factor of financial responsibility. The hon. gentleman referred to “the third man”. That is the man that might be on the losing end. Therefore it is very wise to have in this Bill a clause which will prescribe to any company operating in this field of weather modification a way of compensation. I believe that time will also tell whether we were right in trying to do it this way. I believe time will tell whether we were strict enough.

*The hon. member for Piketberg also referred to one or two matters to which I just want to come back. The one was the question of private water. The hon. member referred to a court case which took place some time ago and in which a cardinal judgment had been given. I want to say it is a very difficult matter, and I just want to make this remark: We cannot allow it to be thought that all private water resources in South Africa may simply be used, and even exploited, by persons in possession of them. Therefore we have taken the wise step in this measure of stipulating in principle that what a person cannot use himself, he may not peddle elsewhere. If he has enough water for his own needs, it should be let through to the person further down. I know of the case where a person had a very important private water resource. If he were to have used this resource for his own needs, there would still have been a large quantity of water left. He then tried to negotiate to pump that water over to another district, so that the whole supply of the river and the area further downstream was endangered. We cannot, of course, allow such irresponsible action, and this is why we have come forward with these amendments.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Piketberg as well, who requested that we should try to arrange for judges who are specially equipped to hear matters in regard to the Water Act. This is a very delicate matter and naturally we must accept that a judge is able to interprete any Act of South Africa. Of course, there are some of our judges who are interested and perhaps more practically orientated in these matters. When such cases occur in future, we shall deal with them individually with the Minister of Justice. I would not like to prescribe to the Minister of Justice, from my capacity, as far as this matter is concerned and as far as judges may be affected. I have the greatest confidence in the judges of South Africa. However, I know what the intention of the hon. member is and thank him for the comment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3 :

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to delay the Committee either on this clause or on any other. The hon. member for Piketberg, the Chairman of our Select Committee, dealt just now with the question of the pollution of our water supplies and said how important it was. This clause reflects a slight change in the present law. It tightens the position as far as possible pollution is concerned because it adds the words “which could pollute”. It states that a person who does anything wilfully or negligently which could pollute water, is guilty of an offence. This is a tightening up of the old provision. This new subsection now deals with the question of pollution in the following way : It includes underground water as it did before and it states that any person who wilfully or negligently does any act which could pollute any public or private water in such a way as to render it less fit for the purposes for which it is, “or could be” ordinarily used, inter alia, for the propagation of fish or other aquatic life or for recreational or other legitimate purposes, shall be guilty of an offence. The words “or could be” have now been inserted in the new subsection. I am still, however, unconvinced that this can lead to prosecutions with success. This is a good way of doing it. Sir, but I want you, with your legal background and training, to think of the Position where a man is taken to court on the ground that water which “could be” used for the propagation of fish life has been polluted to the extent that something which was done by him “could have” I refer to the new words—polluted the water in such a fashion as to make that water, had it been polluted, unfit for the propagation of fish or other aquatic life. Now you try and get a conviction on that, Sir. Our Act must have teeth and it must be enforceable. If we want to keep our water pure, we must deal quickly and harshly with people who transgress. The reward for transgression must be quick and hard punishment; that is the sole means by which we will keep our water pure. This is not the time or place to go into the whole question of pollution. Another opportunity will present itself and I will spread myself on the question, because today from end to end of my province and elsewhere we receive nothing but complaint after complaint about pollution of our rivers, our waters and we cannot get convictions. I do not care what the hon. the Minister has to do. He has an able and efficient staff and we have had the Water Act since 1956, I think. We pleaded at the time in that Select Committee to put teeth into the Water Act to deal adequately with this matter. In spite of all that has taken place and in spite of the provision here I am sure every lawyer this House will agree, and I am sure the department, when they apply it, will agree that we will fail if we attempt to get a conviction under this particular clause, particularly where underground water supplies are concerned, and as the years pass the underground water supplies will be of greater and greater value to us. Therefore I point the finger at this clause because I say it will fail and it is a great pity that it will fail. We must make that clause the sharp point of the sword if we want to enforce our water laws in South Africa. The man who pollutes or who takes any action that can lead to pollution should be dealt with quickly, efficiently and hardly. Then we will get respect for the law, which at the present time is being disregarded.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member. One must make the legislation more severe, otherwise it would not be possible to overcome these problems. I agree with the hon. member that we must put teeth into the Bill. The Bill, in its present form, was submitted to our law advisers and they are of the opinion that we shall be able to prosecute in terms of this. Time will show whether this is correct. I think the principle on which the hon. member and I agree is that if this does not work, we must come back here and make it work. That is the point. But how is one to know without one’s having tried first? I think when we come to the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote, we shall be able to discuss the whole question of pollution.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6 :

Mr. Chairman, clause 6 comprises a new chapter IIIA dealing with weather modification, which has been fairly widely dealt with by both the hon. members for South Coast and Piketberg. I should like to add my Word of appreciation for the fact that this chapter is now in the Bill. I believe that it is a step in the right direction and something that was very necessary in South Africa. I am quite sure that it will also be welcomed by those responsible people who wish to enter the commercial field in this respect. The irresponsible ones, of course, will not welcome it.

I believe that we should now consider the training of personnel in the field of weather modification and particularly in the meteorological field. In saying this, I must express my gratitude to the departments for the wonderful co-operation that they showed in finding the correct solution as to how this could finally be produced. I am thinking along the lines of bursaries to students who wish to study in this field. We are short of men who are well up in weather modification at this stage. The universities of the United States are available to us but not everybody has the funds to go over and study. I believe that the hon. the Minister’s Department and the Department of Transport should in future consider the possibility of creating bursaries for students to go overseas to study further in this particular field. I believe this is a great asset to South Africa. I wonder if the public realize what weather modification really means in reduced costs of water.

I have before me some figures on the increased flow and the increased new water in the United States. It was estimated that in the upper Colorado River basin over quite a long period under weather modification experiments, 1,8 million acre feet of new water p.a. came into that basin. How wonderful this will be to the catchment areas of our dams! It shows that during winter in the damper northern areas of the U.S.A. a 10 per cent increase could be expected from weather modification over a period of 20 years. In the drier areas, which is interesting to us because so many areas in South Africa are dry areas, there was a 30 per cent increase of new water. Now, the question of costs is of fundamental importance. Whereas the cost of stored water can be as high as about R136 and more per acre foot and as low as a little more than R7 in the case of the Orange River project, new water from weather modification costs between R2 and R3 per acre foot. This I believe is going to be a terrific asset to the country and we are exceptionally pleased to have this provision in the Bill.

One appreciates the attitude of that side of the House, in particular that of the hon. member for Albany, who pleaded that our young students be enabled to qualify as scientists in this field. We support him in his plea. However, there is a further idea we should like to put forward for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. It is not only scientists who are required. It should be scientists who have licences to act as pilots. The scientist who causes seeding to take place must control certain reactions in the cloud where seeding takes place, reactions from which he must draw his conclusions.

During the Second Reading the hon. member for South Coast expressed the fear that the seeding of clouds might unleash the forces of nature and that one may cause the reaction to go in the wrong direction. For example, clouds may be seeded for the purposes of hail, while the result is rain, or seeding may be done for the purpose of rain, while the result is hail. I just want to point out that it is impossible in practice to bring about the formation of hail through seeding. When hail has formed in a cloud, it cannot be changed. From a scientific point of view, seeding cannot promote hail. What happens is that the particles or nuclei released during seeding, form ice crystals around which moisture congregates. Ice does not cling to moisture and in this way bigger drops are formed. However, I think it is very important that the hon. the Minister should also consider the further extension of the new course in meteorology at the University of Pretoria—I think it started this year—with the assistance of the Department of Water Affairs so as to include weather modification.

Mr. Chairman, in this clause we get the new chapter IIIA with the heading “Control of activities which may alter the natural occurrence of certain types of atmospheric precipitation.” That is a change from what appeared in the first Bill that was sent to the Select Committee. In that Bill the heading read: “Control of activities which may alter the natural occurrence of rain and similar atmospheric precipitation”. “Rain and similar” have been deleted and substituted by “certain types of”. I do not intend moving an amendment on this clause. I am leaving the matter in the hon. the Minister’s hands. I do not even want to hold up proceedings. The Minister will have an opportunity if he deems it desirable in the Other Place to deal with this matter. But I am very much opposed to the new words that have been inserted. It would have been better if those words were left out altogether, in which case the heading would have read: “Control of activities which may alter the natural occurrence of atmospheric precipitation”. The words “certain types of” show that there is a limitation to the provisions of the Bill in this chapter. The limitation is fixed by “certain types of precipitation”. I have been in touch with a very able member on this side of the House, viz. the hon. member for Durban North. I look upon him as one of the most outstanding legal people in South Africa at the present time. That is why I went to him. When he gave me an opinion that agreed with my own, he went up in my estimation. It is a hallmark of a good lawyer to give you an opinion which agrees with your own. He told me that with respect to what I had in mind, it would not hurt to leave out the words “certain types of”. But, Sir, I am quite frank—and I know the hon. member for Piketberg who was chairman of the Select Committee under whom we served very amicably and happily, would agree—when I say that as a Select Committee we did not want even to put in the word “certain”. We wanted that left out. It was put in but when I suggested that it should be excised, we all agreed. The Department of Transport as well as the witnesses of the Department of Water Affairs also agreed. It was a good thing to leave it out because it imposes a limitation. The legal folk however added the words “types of” as a textual amendment.

I am grousing about that. But when they did add those words and made it “certain types of”, it placed a very specific limitation on the overall control in this chapter.

I do not want the control because I want to protect what I call the innocent bystander. The hon. the Minister will forgive me if I do not call him the third person. The third person always looks to me like a divorce case. In this particular matter I call him the innocent bystander. He is the man whom, when you try to modify weather to give him rain, you give him hail, or a snow storm, or something of that nature. He didn’t want to have anything to do with it, but he is now the victim of a weather modification procedure. This is important because these words were also introduced into the long title. I cannot discuss the long title. But my hon. friend and colleague, my legal consultant, a senior counsel, said to me that it did not matter very much there. I then suggested that we should have a good look at the long title because precisely the same amendment was made in the long title. He then said: “A-ah! Now it does matter. Now you are in trouble”. While I cannot discuss the long title, I have to point out in passing that the same amendment is made there. I hope that the hon. the Minister will have a good look at it. Don’t let us limit this as far as the innocent bystander is concerned. Let the Minister be free to determine in terms of the proposed section 33D (3) (a) and (b) what kind of security, insurance and so forth he requires so that compensation can be paid to the innocent bystander. I do not want it hereafter to be the case that the innocent bystander is told: “No, your damage is one of those ‘certain types of atmospheric precipitation’ which have been excluded from the Bill; you cannot get compensation; that is not one of the types of atmospheric precipitation that we had in mind for the purposes of the Bill; and, you therefore cannot get compensation”. I want it unfettered. If any weather modification should slip up and create damage for an innocent third party, the innocent bystander, the latter should be free to ask for compensation without having to incur the costs of an expensive law case. Because then the Minister in terms of the proposed section 33D (3) (a) and (b) will say with full knowledge to the man who comes to him for a permit: You have got to give insurance up to R10 000 or R20 000 or whatever it may be, in respect of any innocent person who may suffer as a result of your experiment leading to this kind of atmospheric precipitation which causes damage. That is what I seek. As I have said I am not moving an amendment, but I leave it to the Minister. Hereafter he can consult with his officials and the other people. I believe it was put back, after all the evidence was against it, at the request of the legal people. That frightens me and I have to admit that frankly. I am not easily frightened these days, but when I heard that the legal folk wanted to put back that word “certain” and subsequently inserted as a textual amendment “types of”, I got really scared because I do not want court cases. When I am advised by legal people that a good word is necessary to be inserted, I am afraid it may lead innocent people into court cases. We do not want that. We want them to have the law so certain …

Who does not want that?

I am speaking,

I hope, for every member on this side of the House. Therefore I leave it with the Minister, but I do make an appeal to him not to limit the amount which a man can get as compensation if he is an innocent bystander.

Mr. Chairman, I refer to the remarks passed by the hon. member for Albany in connection with available bursaries. I may tell the hon. member that there are bursaries available for the different avenues of study. We do not only furnish bursaries for engineers, but also for our scientific staff which will be needed in future. As a matter of fact at the moment there are people studying who will join the department in a different field than the field of engineering.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem also referred to this point and spoke about meteorologists whom we would have to employ. We find ourselves at the commencement of this scheme. In a further study of the scheme it is very possible that we shall be able to train people for that purpose. We are moreover taking control of far more fields of study than in the past, in the sense that we are able to co-ordinate them with the Water Research Commission. I foresee the day when we shall require the services of various scientists. We shall also require biologists and statisticians, for there are many people who will have to assist us. After all, we are at the beginning of the development. The division of Scientific Services has been established for the very purpose of doing research in various fields. This applies equally to the field which the hon. member indicated.

†The hon. member for South Coast referred to the title of Chapter IIIA which refers to “certain types of atmospheric precipitation”. This wording is used to distinguish between normal atmospheric precipitation and other forms of precipitation which could also include, say, nuclear precipitation. It could be left out but it does not affect section 33A. If the words “certain types of” are deleted in the heading they must also be deleted in clause 13 and in the long title. It means that they must be deleted all along the line. That is what it is going to boil down to.

Yes, but I merely asked the Minister to consider the matter and to make it clear in the Other Place.

Yes, I shall make it clear in the Other Place. I just want to point out that the words were inserted to distinguish between a normal atmospheric precipitation and another kind of precipitation. The idea is to have the distinction between the different types. That is the whole point. In any case we shall consider it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that the hon. the Minister has proved my point now. He has said that what they were aiming at was what was called a normal precipitation and if there is anything abnormal it would fall outside the clause. That is what is worrying me, because we do not know how it will come about. Do hon. members know that in certain areas in America today even the increasing use of jet aircraft is producing precipitation? This happens of certain currents in the air and the fumes from the aircraft which produce certain carbons and so forth. This is the kind of thing in which I am afraid the innocent bystander will get caught up. He is not a party to any experiments for rainmaking and we should provide, therefore, that he will be protected against any damage he may suffer when somebody is carrying out experiments. Private people can come along and get their licences or permits from the Minister and then they can carry out their experiments or do what they promised farmers they would do, namely to make rain. If something goes wrong it may happen that somebody else suffers. All I want is that that man be protected. In passing I may also refer the hon. the Minister on that score to clause 331 on page 9 of the Bill

This provides for cases where anybody unintentionally is causing any modification. It is quite obvious that this clause has been put in deliberately, and quite rightly so, because it is the case that aircraft can cause unintentional precipitation. Where it is unintentional the hon. the Minister cannot give the innocent bystander any compensation, because it is unintentional, and the hon. the Minister does not know about it. Nobody has come to the hon. the Minister and asked to “unintentionally” modify the weather. Let me give the hon. the Minister two cases A very large grass fire can create precipitation because of the currents and the particles of carbon it sends up into the atmosphere.

It might be, although it is very problematical and doubtful whether it will happen in normal life.

It does happen. I ask the hon. the Minister to speak to the hon. member for Middelland who sits behind him and who knows it. We all know it. I am not going to mention sugar cane burning, because the hon. the Minister may say that the sugar cane should not be burning, and then I have to agree with him because they should be thrashing it instead. The fact is that that kind of unintentional weather modification takes place. I will give the hon. the Minister another example. A big city like Durban can cause drizzle in the town with its smog, and it does. Possibly it may be the case in another city as well where it happens because of certain particles of carbon, ethyl-lead, and so forth. They can serve the purpose. You do not need to use silver iodide particles for precipitation purposes. The hon. the Minister cannot guard against that. In this clause he can say to the offender that he must stop what he is doing, but I cannot see him telling farmers that they must not burn their veld. I cannot see him saying to these big towns that they must not have any smog. Perhaps later on he will be able to do it, but he will not do it on grounds of the fact that it is causing precipitation. He will do it for another reason altogether. Therefore he cannot protect the innocent bystander here. Where he can be protected and where it is a deliberate case of weather modification the Minister should see that the innocent bystander will be protected by insurance or whatever it will be to see that he gets compensation if damage is caused.

Mr. Chairman, I may just read the new section 33D (1), which provides: The Minis er may, after consultation with the advisory committee referred to in section 33F and subject to such conditions as he may deem fit, issue … a permit … And then I would like to refer to subsection (3) (a) which provides:

It may, in other words, be determined by the Minister himself. In other words it means that the Minister can prescribe a form of security to be imposed on the permit holder in order to compel him to have the necessary insurance which will protect the bystander or the third party. I think it is being covered in this section, section 33D.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the matter since that clause has been put in by the Select Committee. However, when it says that there are “certain types” of atmospheric precipitation which are being controlled, only certain types, the Minister can only act within those certain types to provide for compensation.

It actually provides for those types of precipitation he is responsible for.

Not necessarily, because he cannot prove that. That is where the court case comes in and it is the court case I want to avoid. I do not want to have court cases. I want the law to be sufficiently clear and all-embracing so that the man who suffers damage can come to the Minister and say: “I have suffered damage because of this man doing these experiments and because of his rainmaking under permit and will you please enforce that clause and tell me how much compensation I can get”. Then he gets his compensation but he is not going to be told that the damage he suffered was one of those types which are not covered by this particular section. I am leaving it at that and I do not want to pursue it. I merely ask the Minister to think it over and if it is necessary, to make amendments in the Other Place.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It sometimes happens that, in the public interest, it is found necessary to appoint an officer in the Public Service to an office outside the Public Service. An example of this is the case of Mr. J. J. Kitshoff, former Secretary for Industries, who was appointed Chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation. In terms of existing provisions of the Public Service Act an officer may, with his own consent, be seconded to the service of another Government, council, body, etc., for a certain duty or for a certain period. In such a case he remains subject to the laws applicable to officers in the South African Public Service.

However, in the case where the appointment of an official to an office outside the public Service in the public interest, is a permanent arrangement, secondment is unpractical and incompatible, as it follows logically that such an officer should be able to act freely in his new office. The discharge of such an officer from the Public Service is therefore the obvious thing to do. Clause 1 (a) of the Bill therefore provides for the discharge of an officer who, in the public interest, is appointed by the State President office outside the Public Service.

In the abovementioned context, it may just be added that an officer need not necessarily accept such an appointment. Should it not be acceptable to him, he could refuse it and his position would remain unchanged. As far as pension benefits are concerned, provision will be made in the appropriate regulations for the officer who has not yet attained the compulsory pensionable age at the time of such appointment to receive the same benefits as would have been the case if he had been discharged because of, for example, the abolition of his post or the reduction or reorganisation or rearrangement of departments or offices, etc.—in other words, the benefit of added service.

As far as clauses 1 (b) and (c) are concerned it must be pointed out that the Public Service Commission, in terms of the provisions of section 14 (10) of the Act, shall first recommend the discharge of an officer holding a post in the administrative, clerical, professional, technical or general A division of the Public Service before the Minister or Administrator, or an officer to whom such power has been delegated, may approve the discharge of such an officer. In the case of an appointment of an officer by the State President, as envisaged by the Bill, the Commission’s recommendation for the discharge of such an officer will be quite superfluous and the power to discharge may similarly be given to the State President. Clauses 1 (b) and (c) provide for this.

Clause 2 contains the short title of the Bill.

Sir, we will support this measure which is now being introduced by the hon. the Minister. There are just one or two minor points I wish to raise with him, and that is the question of the continuance of the pension rights in the new post to which the official may be transferred. Will that official remain, for pension purposes, on the roll, as it were, of the Public Service, or does he then have to fall under some new dispensation in so far as his pension rights are concerned? I understand the mechanical aspect of the transfer, but I raise this point because we are really legislating here for one individual, and it is always dangerous legislating for the isolated case. For that reason I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that there are no difficulties which might arise with regard to the pension rights of officials who are dealt with under this particular legislation.

I thank the hon. member for supporting the measure on behalf of the other side of the House. The position in regard to pension rights is that the official who is transferred to the new post will receive exactly what he would have received had he remained in his old post. There is no loss to him at all.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I want to refer just shortly to a matter which was raised here last time, and that is the position of the previous Secretary for Tourism.I felt that I should call for all the information so that I could put the full record before this Committee. I would like to give this now so that the Committee will appreciate what procedures were adopted as far as I was concerned.

I, as Minister of Tourism, made representations through the proper channels to the Public Service Commission that the post of Secretary for Tourism should be downgraded to that of Deputy Secretary, which was the former grade. Following my representations I accepted the recommendation by the Public Service Commission that (a) the grading of the head of the department be reverted to that which previously prevailed: (b) that the incumbent of the post of Secretary for Tourism be retired from the Public Service in terms of the appropriate provision of the Public Service Act with effect from the 1st September, 1971; (c) that the official be granted five years added service for pension purposes; and (e) that he be paid the cash value of all accumulated leave standing to his credit.

The hon. member for Simonstown, in raising this matter in what I regarded as an unpleasant way, tried to convey to the Committee that I had treated this particular individual callously, with the result that he had suffered great financial loss. I immediately called for the figures because I was not prepared to let that statement go unchallenged. I want to give the figures to hon. members so that hon. members will be fully aware of the position. These pension benefits were calculated in terms of the applicable pension regulations and the following financial amounts on retirement resulted: Pension gratuity of R21 719, leave gratuity of R9 961, a total of R31 680. That was in the form of cash payment. In addition he will receive a pension of approximately R562 a month, amounting to R6 732 per annum. Now I want to say, as I said last time, that I think it is not right for members of this committee to bandy around details like the man’s name, etc. I do not think it does the Public Service any good, nor the person. I think the hon. member for Simonstown is becoming known as a member who indulges in this type of activity. I do not think it does his party any good nor does it do him any good.

The public is always interested.

The public is interested in many things. Pornography is one of them, but that is not a thing one bandies across the floor of the House. I want to point out to hon. members on that side of the House that they sent the hon. member for Simonstown to Oudtshoorn, and I will say to his credit that he is fully bilingual, and he was able to put over the policy of his party to the people in Oudtshoorn, I think, effectively. They cannot complain about that. That is why the United Party got 500 votes less and the Nationalist Party 1 400 votes more. I only hope that when they come to Caledon they will send that hon. member to Caledon with the same formula that he tried at Oudtshoorn. Then we will get the same results that we got at Oudtshoorn.

Did you warn him that you were going to say this about him?

He knows the Order Paper. Do I know when I am coming up? But I am here. I am not here to tell the hon. member whether he should be here or not. He did not hesitate to attack me so I can say exactly what I think about the hon. member, even if he is not here. [Interjections.]

Order!

He could have been here; his Whips could have called him.

Did you deal with this last time?

No, I only dealt with portion of it, but I have obtained information now because of the charges that the hon. member made, There the hon. member is now. I will send him my Hansard with pleasure. The hon. member could have been in the House, as he is now, and could have heard what I said. As far as I am concerned, I believe that the previous Secretary of Tourism should be left in peace as apparently he asked to be left according to the report in the newspaper this morning.

The hon. member for East London City raised certain matters I should like to deal with. He first raised the matter of SARTOC and I want to point out to him that the arrangement about SARTOC was that at least four countries must sign the agreement. Up till now three countries have signed, including South Africa, but the fourth, as far as I know, has not signed it yet. The provision, therefore—and I mention this for the benefit of the hon. member for Constantia also—of R273 000 was made in the previous Estimates to cover a 17 month period. It has not been paid because Sartoc was not actually established. Even the amount for which provision is now being made, of R193 000 has not been paid and not a cent will be paid until such time as the agreement is completed.

May I ask a question? I understand from the hon. the Minister that our payment to Sartoc is back-pay for a previous period. When it starts they will receive the subscription for the past year.

No. The payment towards Sartoc will only be made from the time the agreement is completed. But the provision was correctly made because it was a liability that could have cropped up. But this liability did not occur because the agreement was not signed. Even the R173 000 is only a provision in the event of it being signed, but up to now, as far as I know, the fourth member has not signed yet. That is why no money has passed and no obligation exists for back-payment as the hon. member seems to think.

The hon. member for East London City also mentioned the inadequate Satour expenditure on advertising. He talked about the R300 000 that appeared in the report in respect of advertising. I should like to point out to the hon. member that that is not the complete picture. The R300 000 is payment for advertising but it is only part of the promotional campaign of Satour overseas. For instance, they produced films and they paid for the distribution of those films. That in itself is a publicity and advertising campaign, and that cost R250 000. They also bring overseas tourists to this country so that they can see conditions here so that they can go back with first-hand knowledge; they invite editors of travel magazines and travel writers for newspapers to come out here. The whole publicity campaign costs over R1 million. The hon. member may say that is not enough but my point is that this is the amount we consider South Africa is in a position to spend through Satour on publicity overseas. It is not the R300 000 which the hon. member seems to think it was. With regard to the advertising agency, a contract was eventually cancelled, I described it as a storm in a tea cup. I say that because all over the world, in every country, firms change their advertising agents. The hon. member talked about a vacuum existing, but that is not the case. In the meantime Satour is using the same advertising agency—I think it is Lindsay Smithers—that S.A. Airways use. There is no vacuum. If is only a matter of a commercial practice. We are doing this in the meantime as an interim measure while we approach certain other big units as far as financing and an advertising campaign is concerned.

May I ask a question? It is reported that the campaign only lasted up to the end of March, the advertising campaign that we had. I believe invitations have been sent out to six agencies to put forward proposals, but what has happened from the end of March up to the time that the board has approved the proposals for the three year period?

That interim period, or period of vacuum that the hon. member refers to, does not exist, because the advertising campaign is still going on, except that it is being done at the present moment on a temporary basis by Lindsay Smithers. I want to tell the hon. member something which I think will interest him. I got this from Satour, and it is the Satour Board that decides these things, and how an advertising campaign should be conducted. They say this—

Satour also informs me that the previous firm that they had, had no overseas associates until Satour demanded that they establish liaison with advertising agencies in London and Frankfurt. In all other areas where Satour operates difficulties were experienced. I do not want to go into all the detail. The fact is that in this case a statutory, autonomous body decided how it should operate its advertising campaign. That is why I say that this whole argument which took place was merely a storm in a tea-cup.

But why were you so silent all the time?

But I did malee a statement immediately. I used the very words, that this was a storm in a tea-cup; it had nothing to do with me. However, we know the English Press. The one thing they want to do is to try to discredit me as Minister of Tourism and therefore they pinned this on to me. That is what happened and I accept that that is the way they operate.

I want to refer to the speech of the hon, member for Durban Point, who, unfortunately, is not here. I told him that 95 per cent of the hotels had registered with the Hotel Board whereas he said that the scheme would be a complete failure. He talked about 400 hotels that had closed down. I said it was so because they could not conform to the minimum requirements for an hotel. Hon. members will remember that the hotel and liquor reports stated that some of these hotels were merely retail liquor outlets. They were not hotels in any sense of the word, and that is why they are out of business as hotels and not registered. I am not sorry that they went out of business. If they want liquor outlets in the name of hotels, then the hon. members must support that, but that is where I completely disagree with the hon. member for Durban Point. What I want to stress is that over 95 per cent—I am not sure of the figures, but I know that last time it was over 95 per cent—of the hotels which are the holders of liquor licences are registered with the Hotel Board and they accept the Hotel Board as a body for them and pay their levies towards the Hotel Board’s existence, because they know the advantages the Board has brought to the hotel trade.

The hon. member also talked about the fact that I receive R19 000 to look after the 71 officials of my department. I would say that the hon. member ought to make that comparison when it comes to his party s shadow Cabinet, because what happens? In the shadow Cabinet they have a separate Minister for each of the three portfolios I have. If I take the three portfolios which I have together, I think there are more than 7 000 officials. However, that is of no significance. This shows you where a little bit of Wednesday evening discrediting and joviality can bring you.

The hon. member made a big issue about the fact that the one report said 1 213 hotels were registered while another report stated that the number was 1 218. I want to inform the hon. member how that happened. I think I should read to the hon. member what this was all about. Hon. members will remember that he got a big laugh and great cheers on that side of the House, but this is the report which I received—

So, all it amounted to is that the one figure went to the Press on 25th March and the other on 31st March. Now we have this terrible occurrence—great differences in the two reports, and how can this Minister be capable of running departments when this sort of thing happens.

I now want to come to my friend, the hon. member for Constantia. I am a Capetonian and I believe that the Cape is the most beautiful spot in the world, and I am sure he does too. However, I want to say this to that Capetonian. Does he know how the Capetonians feel about it? They reckon the Cape is theirs and even begrudge people coming from up country; they do not like them to come down to Cape Town; they do not want them here. Let me put this to the hon. member for Constantia. He is a member of Cape Town’s Publicity Association. I am amazed that the Cape people can say that they have a short season. I think they consider December and January as their season. However, look at the weather at the present time. The Cape has a nine months’ season. If only these people would show a bit more initiative, like the people in Durban do, their hotels will be full and the Cape will be quite a different place from what it is now. There will then not be the need for so many hotels to close down.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has read the last report of the Cape Peninsula Publicity Association?

I want to put it to the hon. member that to me reading the report is of no importance. I want to tell the hon. member that in Johannesburg and Durban the hoteliers send their marketing managers overseas regularly to pull in visitors from overseas. I wonder how many hoteliers here in the Cape have sent their marketing managers overseas to pull in tourists. What the hon. member wants to do is blame the Government. He says the Government is to blame. I would say that his very publicity association could do much more for the Cape than they are doing at present. [Interjections.]

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. member knows they could do much more and everybody knows that too. I am a Capetonian myself. Even I got to the stage where I considered every visitor an intruder into what I regarded was my Cape paradise.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He said that he wanted to give me a productive point of view, something which could be useful to me. He said that we should introduce a Southern Hemisphere World Tour with South Africa as the centre. All I can tell the hon. member is that three years ago Satour, South African Airways and an American firm developed a package tour, called “Round the World in the Southern Hemisphere.” That was done three years ago, but only now the hon. member comes and makes this wonderful suggestion to me how I can improve tourism.

I want to conclude by saying that I appreciate the way in which the hon. member for De Aar has put over statistics. He put over positive statistics to show South Africa’s tourist growth from year to year. He did not adopt the Jeremiah attitude which we always find on that side. The hon. members for Koedoespoort and Stellenbosch have always shown a great interest in tourism. Theirs is not a negative interest; theirs is a positive approach to see in what way we can increase our tourist industry. I thank them for their contributions.

I wanted to say at the beginning that the one thing I appreciated from the hon. member for Bethlehem was the fact that he welcomed Mr. Wessels, the new incumbent of the post of Secretary for Tourism. If there is any person who has had to suffer indignities, it has been Mr. Wessels. I know that I appreciated what the hon. member said and I am sure Mr. Wessels appreciated it even more. I should also like to tell the hon. member that his suggestion that we should issue special brochures on specific items, like geology, etc., is a very good one and I shall see that it is passed on to Satour so that they can establish whether it will be possible to bring affinity groups to South Africa for special purposes.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. I referred to the T.V. advertising Satour was undertaking and the very small number of viewers that they were getting for the money they were spending. I put this question to the Minister especially. I put the question to him: Why not go on to commercial advertising, buy time in the U.S.A. and get 38 million viewers for one viewing, instead of over a period of a year?

Order! The hon. member must put his question and not make a speech of it.

Mr. Chairman, we should like to express our sincere gratitude at the end of this debate to the hon. the Minister and his department who have meant so much to tourism in our country. I just want to raise one matter briefly, to round off the debate on this side of the House. This matter concerns an appeal made by Mr. Knobel, the director of the National Parks Board, to the hotel industry in our country. Mr. Knobel pointed out that one of the shortcomings of the hotel industry is perhaps the fact that not all the hotels have a genuine South African character. This, he said, should accompany the hospitality which forms part of our national life. He emphasized the fact that people come to South Africa to see South Africa and not to see a tourist industry copied from Europe, America or any other overseas country. Mr. Rocco Knobel is one of our South African experts on tourism and he raised an important matter here which our hotel industry would be well advised to take note of.

For the promotion of tourism in our country we find that the Kruger National Park is one of the major tourist attractions. The fact that it simply cannot meet the demand creates a major problem, especially for the local tourists. For this reason we may perhaps draw the attention of the South African public to the unique Kalahari Gemsbok Park, the Bontebok Park, the Mountain Zebra Park as well as the camp of the National Parks Board at Aughrabies, and Etosha in South-West Africa. I may just mention that although the Kalahari Gemsbok Park cannot be compared to the Kruger National Park, a genuine South African tourist would derive as much pleasure and satisfaction from a visit to this park as from one to the Kruger National Park.

In conclusion I want to mention the fact that the National Parks Board is working on a very fine project at the moment viz. a survey of the Sishen/Postmasburg area, where the Witsand area and the Gosi Reserve were visited recently. All these areas are potential national parks. We are looking forward to the day when these areas can be developed, these areas which are able to make the same major contribution towards our tourist industry as the National Kruger Park. Sir, with this I should like to conclude, and I thank you for the opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister read from a prepared statement about the position surrounding the previous Secretary of the department; but the questions we had asked, he did not answer. What reasons motivated the hon. the Minister to down-grade the post of the head of the department? It is something to which we have had no answer and which we are unable to understand. This is potentially one of the most important departments to South Africa. Surely, you want the highest-powered possible person in charge of the department. If the Minister had felt that the incumbent of the department was the wrong person, he could have taken other steps. He could have shifted him or done something else but leave the responsibility of a full secretary to the deputy secretary. We have had no explanation from the hon. the Minister in this regard, nor as to the brusque and the abrupt nature of the dismissal. Only half an hour before this gentleman’s period of service was to close, he was handed a note to say that the post had been disestablished. However, there will be another chance to discuss this matter under another Vote, and it will be raised again, but we think the hon. the Minister at least owes us that much of an explanation and to explain to us what were the motives behind this move. We are still unable to understand how you can down-grade a post in a department which is potentially so important.

It is quite obvious that tourism is a trade of peace. This is the trade which flourishes when the world at large is in a period of flourishing economy, when people have money to spend and when they can afford to titillate their appetite by seeing the outlandish and the far-away places. Surely, one of our problems here in South Africa is that we are at the end of the air-lane for people flying from Europe. For them to come to South Africa, they must have a deliberate and set purpose. I think one of our problems is to so interest people who come here, whether they come here on business or whatever other reason than purely tourism, that they will take the opportunity to stay here longer and to see more of what South Africa has to offer.

In this regard I wish to refer to a matter which was dealt with very briefly by the hon. member for East London City, namely the question of sport fishing …

The man next to you, the hon. member for Simonstown, knows all about it.

I said “sport fishing”. He has sport catching the Nationalists—we have sport catching the fish. I took the trouble years ago to find out from figures what the amount of money is spent in the United States on sport fishing. I was absolutely astounded at the amount. The amount in one year spent on sport fishing in the United States is over $2 500 million.

What is wrong with it?

There is nothing wrong with it—it is the best way to spend their money. I cannot see what the hon. member is concerned about. But this is an incredible amount of money. I think of a place such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, which is one of the biggest concentrations of power-generation in the United States and was established by Act of Congress to make power available and to sell power in order to establish industrial complexes. Yet today, the Tennessee Valley Authority pulls in more revenue from tourism than from any other sources, including the sale of power. What brings a tourist there, is the fact that you can catch ten pound black bass in the lakes. That is a very nice fish, Sir. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that there is developing now in South Africa, particularly in our own province of Natal, more specifically in the Tugela Basin, the sort of set-up that there is in the Tennessee Valley. There are already today eight large impoundments, either in the Basin or in the surroundings. There is the ability to develop, not only the large impoundments, but also the smaller impoundments, which would be based on the fact that in dams throughout my constituency and throughout any area in the Drakensberg, you can be sure on a reasonable day of catching trout weighing up to six and eight pounds.

White bass, not black bass.

These are the white bass—rainbow bass. Mr. Chairman, I cannot tell you the number of people who come, for instance to an area like Underberg, simply to fish. And they have not even started to develop the area as yet. There must be hundreds and hundreds of sites available throughout the length and breadth of that area of Natal where this sort of development could take place. It is something which would have the effect there that it has in New Zealand. People go specifically from Europe to New Zealand to fish in the rivers, to catch trout. There they range in the rivers up to 15 pounds. We do not have them as big as that. If one thinks of the amount of money that is spent in the United States and the all-important aspect of internal tourism in the United States, one realizes what can be done. Anybody who goes to the United States today, makes a point of seeing the Tennessee Valley Authority. Today the big games in Natal are under the control of the Natal Parks Board. The function of the Minister’s department, if they are to have a function in encouraging this sort of thing, would be in the publicity and the interest that they would be able to arouse in overseas countries. Already at the Midmar Dam over the Easter weekend about 25 000 people visited that dam. This is only one dam, and in all there are eight large dams in that area. More are being built already and the ESC are already discussing a tentative plan to build another nine or ten in the Tugela Valley. Some of them will be in the Zululand area and could afford to the Zulu people of that area a considerable income from tourism. I really think that we are missing something here. We must reach out our hands now and start thinking about this matter. We should plan and project it not only to the people overseas, but more particularly to them, but to the people in South Africa itself. I think we are missing a bet, and I earnestly recommend this to the hon. the Minister. May be a man on his staff can be appointed to take oversight of the matter and to find out where the weak spots are and to direct the thinking of the local people into those directions.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to say to the hon. member for Pretoria District that I have been to the Gemsbok Park. I have always hoped that it could be another Kruger Park. I made intensive enquiries with the National Parks Board and they told me that one of the biggest problems there was the water problem. Hon. members will appreciate that the Gemsbok Park does not have any water animals like elephants and hippos at all. This is because there is a major water shortage. This problem even influences the extension of camps. At our last discussion Mr. Knobel said that they were still hoping that they could overcome the one problem of larger camps with adequate water so that to that extent they could extend their camps.

I would now like to reply to the hon. member for Mooi River. I do not want to go into the matter concerning the previous Secretary again. I am quite prepared that he take it up on some other occasion. As far as the department is concerned, I down-graded the post to what it was previously. As I saw it, it was up-graded in the first place because it was accommodating a Secretary who was becoming redundant in another department. But from the beginning I was quite satisfied that that posit should be held by a deputy secretary. I would like to point out to the hon. member that I have a Satour Board, an Hotel Board and a Tourist Advisory Committee. As the hon. member for Durban Point said the department only consists of some 70 odd members.

He said it was a most important department.

I do not deny that it is an important department, but I have always regarded the private sector as the most important part of the tourist trade.

I now want to come to the fishing issue raised by the hon. member. I quite agree with what the hon. member has said. I have been right up to Kosi and Sordwana Bay because I have always considered that in the Mozambique Channel there are great opportunities for deep-sea fishing. I have also visited the False Bay and Cape Point area as regards tunny fishing. Basically a great deal of publicity is given by South Africa to the possibility of sport fishing in South Africa. We have films which were shown on TV in America. We even have international tournaments in South Africa. More and more people are coming to South Africa for this purpose. As far as the dams are concerned, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and myself have discussed this matter on may occasions. The hon. member will probably remember the water sport display on the Midmar dam. The dam is not only there for fishing. There is a tremendous amount of water sport that can be accommodated on some of these inland dams. It is in all these directions that we are considering the matter. Recently I went to the site of a dam not 80 miles from Cape Town where only the first sod has been uprooted. The department is already thinking about what kinds of fish can be put into that dam, even if we have to import the eggs or small fish, or whatever it is, from overseas. I have always said that South Africa has a great tourist potential and I hate to hear the pessimistic way in which hon. members approach this matter. The figures show that the number of tourists are increasing. South Africa was not originally a tourist country. I still remember the time when somebody said : “Just look at how bad your tourist figures are in comparison with Australia and New Zealand”. Australia is in a similar position to South Africa; it is also far from the mass market. It has problems similar to ours. But it does not have bordering territories like we have and to that extent we have an advantage over Australia. I can assure hon. members that our overall figures of tourists from bordering territories and from abroad were higher than Australia’s. However, it is not only the figures that count; it is the number of nights and days people spend in a country. They may go to Spain for only three days, but stay in South Africa for 21 days. If one looks at the whole situation, from this angle, I think one will get a better picture of the true situation of tourism as far as South Africa is concerned.