Mr. Chairman, at this stage it must already be very clear to the Opposition that we on this side of the House do not make laws to fit in with their federal system. That is the argument the hon. member for Transkei has thus far advanced. Apparently the hon. member is going to speak just after I have finished, and I want to ask him to tell us why there are separate legislation for primary and secondary Bantu education. I refer him to the Bantu Education Act, Act No. 47 of 1953. In addition I want to ask him why there was separate legislation for the Bantu universities. A second question he must reply to, is the following: What has the situation been, in practice, the past ten years? He must please elaborate on that for us as well. But when he has answered that, I should like to refer him to Hansard of 1959, where the then Minister of Bantu Education said the following, inter alia, (Hansard, Vol. 100, col. 4450):

In addition I want to refer him to debates conducted in 1963, where the previous hon. member for Kensington, Mr. Moore, asked the following, inter alia, (Hansard, Vol. 7, col. 6302):

In other words, the previous hon. member for Kensington very clearly implied in his question that the National Party is engaged in transferring primary and secondary Bantu education to the Bantu governments, up to some future stage that will suit us, when we shall then agree to transfer tertiary education to them as well. At the time the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education replied to that as follows, stating (Hansard, Vol. 7, col. 6352):

It is interesting to see, by the way, what the previous hon. member for Kensington replied. Mr. Moore said the following:

Then the hon. the Minister went further and said:

In other words, Mr. Chairman, it must be very clear that, although we have transferred primary and secondary education to the Bantu governments at that stage, we have, for very clear and definite reasons, not implied that university training should be transferred to them at that stage. This I must also state very clearly: It has never been our intention that tertiary education, university training, should ever be completely divorced from the Transkei and its Government and its people, in the sense that we did not want them not to have a lively interest in tertiary education for their own people. At this stage I would very much like to listen to the arguments, if there is still any argument, of the other side of the House.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria Rissik, who has just spoken, makes the same mistake that all the other hon. members opposite, including the hon. the Minister, actually make, when he offers excuses about why we should not regard Bantu education as one concept and one idea. In reality those excuses betray the negative attitude they have in respect of the development of the various Bantu population groups. The hon. member quoted from speeches of 1959. I want to remind him that the Transkeian Constitution only came into being in 1963. In other words, what he quoted from 1959 debates has been wrenched out of context. In addition he quoted what the previous member for Kensington, Mr. Moore, said. I can also quote to him from speeches of the previous member for Kensington in which he advocated that the Bantu community should have a larger share in university training.

Sir, in the main the arguments of the hon. members on that side amount to this, i.e. that if one has done something wrong in the past, one can simply continue doing it wrongly in the future as long as one just does it wrongly within the context of the law, i.e. as long as one just passes an amending Bill. If we look at clause 9, what do we find? In clause 9 provision is being made for the transfer of Bantu education to the homelands. If it is transferred, we must surely accept that they are going to have Ministers of Bantu education. Last week we had to listen to moral lessons here, particularly from the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, about the necessity for the various peoples to develop on an equal basis in South Africa. He pointed out that a fully-fledged state could never develop without that. Sir, in the light of this specific clause it is clear that those words were only fine words. Because what is the implication of this clause? The implication of this clause is that one can, in effect, have a Department of Bantu Education in every homeland and that one can, indeed, have a Minister of Bantu Education in every homeland, but that that Minister will not be able to lay claim to the status of a fully-fledged Minister of Education.

The point we want to make—and that is why we are moving this amendment—is that when one deprives the homelands of the right to have a full share and control over so intimate a matter as the education of their own community, one is really, in the idiom of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, encroaching upon the human dignity of that Bantu people. The Government’s whole attitude in respect of the question of a share, and the denial of a share for the homelands in the university training of their own people, proves to us that the Government and the hon. the Minister are remaining static in their conception and attitudes in this regard. Sir, I want to quote to you what argument was advanced, in 1969 by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, about why there could not be representatives of the Bantu on the university boards; he said—

Sir, how long must we in South Africa continue to tell the Bantu: “You can have a Minister of Education, but you are not competent enough to manage a body like a university?” How long must we continue with this encroachment upon the human dignity of those people?

I now come to the other argument that was advanced here, which more or less amounts to the following: “Why are you complaining? Under the Whites you have divided control over education.” It is an argument that was raised earlier in this debate. We were reminded that the provincial councils control primary education in ordinary high schools and that the universities fall under the Department of National Education.

That is so.

Yes, that is so, but we on this side believe that such divided control is undesirable, and if it is undesirable in the case of White education, our standpoint must surely be that we do not force such an undesirable situation upon the non-Whites. It is not necessary to remind me that there is divided control in White education; that is general knowledge, but there is this difference, that the Whites are not denied the right of having a share as far as so intimate a matter is concerned, i.e. the university training of their people, because although there is divided control, the Whites can exercise management and control over university training by means of democratic representation in the provincial council and in this House. Sir, what do we find here? In the year 1973 we find that the hon. the Minister is apparently convinced that the Bantu are not able, at this stage, to exercise full control over their own education. Annually we obtain reports here from the Department of Bantu Education. Those reports are about Bantu education as such, and those same reports also have a bearing on university education, as well as the education of school going children. Our plea is that education should be regarded as one concept and as one idea, and therefore I believe that if the hon. the Minister wants to act correctly within the framework of his own party’s policy, he cannot but accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Transkei. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply to us on this. He said yesterday that he does not actually like replying.

† Just because the Minister achieved a hat trick in the Klip River by-election campaign by repudiating himself three times at one political meeting—he repudiated the candidate; he repudiated the Prime Minister, and he achieved the impossible by repudiating himself on the fencing issue—he need not be afraid to answer our questions. I know he is a good cricketer; I know he is a gentleman, and I think he will get up and give us satisfactory answers to our questions. He need not be afraid that he will repudiate himself here.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am very disappointed. I expected some Government member to get up and to justify this amendment proposed by the Government, but even the hon. the Minister remains silent. Sir, I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday to tell us why this amendment was necessary. He had the hon. the Minister with him here yesterday and the hon. the Minister had a lot to say while I was speaking. The hon. the Minister told us that the present Transkei Constitution Act was being amended for legal purposes only. He said that nothing was being taken away from the Transkei and that this was the only reason why it was necessary to amend the Act. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in replying to the Second Reading debate, said this—

*We want to know what those problems are. Yesterday I asked what the problems are and why this amendment is necessary. But we have not heard anything from the Minister yet.

† The hon. member for Rissik, who valiantly got up to try to defend the hon. the Minister, asked us whether we expected the Government to make laws to fit in with our federal policy. Sir, we do not necessarily expect them to make laws just to fit in with our federal policy, but on the other hand we do not expect them to refuse to accept wise suggestions merely because they will fit in with our federal policy. He need not be afraid. I know that they are a bit touchy on this point, but he need not be afraid of accepting suggestions from this side, because every year we find them accepting more and more of the suggestions made by us the year before or the year before that, especially as far as education is concerned. You will remember, Sir, that one of their previous Ministers forbade his inspectors to shake hands with the African teachers. I ask them: Do they still abide by that instruction? Of course they do not. We attacked them at the time for being unreasonable. Sir, I say that the hon. member for Rissik cannot expect us to agree to amendments here which go contrary to our policy, and where the law at present is in terms of our policy, surely we are entitled, and justified, and everybody expects us to oppose any amendment to that law. I hope the Minister will now get up—because nobody is getting up on that side of the House—and he will now tell us exactly why it is necessary. If, as the Minister says, it is only for legal purposes, I want to know what these are. I want him to tell us what the troubles are that he says exist, because on Monday he said it was “omdat daar sekere probleme in verband hiermee, is”. We want to know what these problems are.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply to the arguments about this, and I hope I shall also satisfy the hon. member for Durban Central. He has apparently heard the word “repudiate”, and now he is trying to make this House believe that he understands what it means; he has used it here quite a few times, but I hope I shall also be able to satisfy him.

The hon. member for Transkei says that yesterday the Minister said “for legal purposes”. I cannot endorse what hon. members fling across the floor here about what the hon. the Minister is supposed to have said, but the problem is that the Act, as it stands at present, is being interpreted as if all education is included. But the practical position is that an understanding exists between the various Bantu Governments and this Government, the Minister on behalf of this Government, to the affect that they control primary and secondary education. That is the position in practice. That is all that is involved in the discussion about education with them. In other words, they accept that there is a separation. The Minister controls university education and they control primary and higher education. Practical effect has been given to a concept. The Act is in conflict with that concept at the moment, as it now functions. It is therefore clear that the Act must be changed to eliminate that contradiction and the possible problems that may result. I do not think there are any other arguments in connection with the matter. I have said there are reasons why it must not be transferred now. If they ask for it, such a request can be discussed with them. But, as I have already said, there are various universities and there is more than one people present in some of these universities, and it would perhaps not be desirable to transfer university training to them before each has its own university. That is my opinion on the matter, but if some of these homeland leaders want to discuss the matter with the Minister—there has been no discussion about that as yet—they may do so. I repeat, therefore, that this amendment is not acceptable because we have a position in practice that is not reconcilable with the Act as it is at present, and therefore it is being amended.

But, Sir, quite a few other arguments have now been dragged in here, inter alia, by the hon. member for Durban Central, as if to say we do not want to give rights to the people; we make as if we want to give them rights, but when it comes to practicalities we do not want to do so. I immediately want to say that there is no question here of the taking away of rights, because in practice this does not apply. I also intimated this yesterday. Last year, when provision had to be made for certain powers to governments in the Constitution of the Bantu homelands, that side of the House kicked up a tremendous fuss because we were supposedly giving people rights and management in respect of matters they have, according to the opposition, not the faintest idea about. I even think the hon. member for Durban Berea asked here how many matriculants there were and how these people could handle those matters. One year they come along here with one story and the next year with another story, and even on that occasion I told them it was not a question of learning; it is a question of wisdom which is lacking, of course, on that side of the House, but you must realize that this whole question of development of the Bantu areas is an evolutionary process that proceeds slowly because the people must gain an understanding of and be led into the practical administration of various matters. I could mention to you quite a few other aspects in connection with which they have no powers as yet, as hon. members know. If hon. members then want to say they must now obtain powers in respect of education in all its aspects, in accordance with the principle that it is our intention to give them the powers, it means that we must give them everything overnight. That, surely, is unnecessary and undesirable. The Transkei has already been on the road to independence for almost ten years. They have gradually obtained more rights because we are busy here with an evolutionary process. What is very important in this connection, however, is that the Opposition is trying to exploit and exaggerate differences that exist between homeland governments and this government. I think those are dangerous tactics, and I want to tell them in all seriousness that this could boomerang on them.

Are there differences?

Here they suspect there is a difference. There is no difference, but they suspect there is a difference and now a tremendous discussion is being held about that. I want to tell hon. members that, in the light of the delicate position of the White/Bantu relationship in this country and the task that we all, as Whites, must carry out in a responsible way in that connection, they ought not to exaggerate supposed or presumed differences for the sake of small political gain. Even if there were differences, they ought to consider them soberly, objectively and coolly.

I understand, of course, that after last week the Opposition needs rehabilitation. They urgently and seriously need it. However, I want to appeal to them not to use this type of debate to try to rehabilitate themselves after last week’s no confidence debate. The only reason I can see why the Opposition is trying to get hold of arguments, for example like the hon. member for Durban North, who even says now that if a Minister controls education, he ought to control everything, otherwise he is not a fully-fledged Minister …

Do you agree?

I do not think there is any sense in that. There are various Ministers who have only a limited say in certain matter; everything has not yet been handed over to them. That is simply how things are. The fact that hon. members now speak disparagingly about that, as if they are not fully-fledged Ministers, does not hold water. Such a Minister is a fully-fledged Minister within the restricted powers granted to him, and within the limits of the powers granted to him, he carries out his task.

I also gain the impression that for lack of proper arguments the Opposition is trying to latch on to this type of legislation and anything connected with the Bantu, as I mentioned a while ago, to try to rehabilitate themselves, or otherwise they are chasing up hares. The hon. member for Durban Point is not here today, but he is the chaser-up of hares. He tries to present something here, the whole Opposition follows suit and then they expect me to reply three or four times to all kinds of fictitious arguments, arguments that are not properly founded.

He is chasing up a hare, but he will never catch him.

I am not afraid to answer, but I am not going to take part in a game to create the impression in the outside world that the Opposition has well-founded and important arguments. I mentioned this yesterday, and I want to mention it again: If they want to chase after hares or a greased sucking pig. I go along with it—it is their pleasure—but I do not think it is the task of this side to participate on a large-scale. We shall watch their attempts with admiration and we shall watch how they run breathless after fancied problems that they see.

I shall therefore conclude with this, except to say that in terms of the Acts, which give the various Bantu universities fully-fledged university status and which were passed in 1969, it is very clear that we are dealing here with various categories of education, and the fact of the Bantu Government’s obtaining a say about that at this stage, has never cropped up. I am very sorry, but the arguments which have thus far come to the fore have not impressed me in the least, in the sense that I could consider accepting the amendment that has been moved.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to clarify a certain point? Last year the hon. the Minister of Finance replied to a question in regard to the Committee of Inquiry into financing non-White universities. The question I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance was whether the committee of inquiry had concluded its investigations, who was on the committee of inquiry and whether legislation would flow from its recommendations. In the answer I was told that Mr. Lodder, the former Secretary to the Treasury, was a member of the committee. I believe that the committee became known as the Lodder Committee. It was also made clear that the Department of Bantu Education was represented on this committee and it was indicated that the committee at that stage—it was in March, 1972—had not yet completed its report. My question to the hon. the Deputy Minister now is whether the committee appointed by the Minister of Finance to conduct this investigation has completed its report and, if so, are the recommendations such that they resulted in his clause in this amending Bill which the Minister has put forward? Has the committee completed its report? Is it as a result of their recommendations that this amendment has been introduced?

Mr. Chairman, I am not in a position to inform the hon. the member whether the inquiry to which he refers, is completed. I cannot see what connection there is between the inquiry referred to and this legislation, but I shall reply to him in due course as soon as I have ascertained what the position is.

Mr. Chairman, earlier in this debate during the Second Reading I asked the hon. the Minister a question in this connection. He said that there was a relationship between what he is asking now in this amendment in so far as Bantu Universities are concerned and, the position as it pertain in the provinces at the moment. All I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister at the moment, if he will pay attention to me instead of to his officials, is if there is anything written and enacted in the statutes of the country at the moment which states that there is a division in education as far as the provinces are concerned, or is it merely accepted? Why can it not be left as merely accepted and why can the position not be left as it was here? If I remember correctly, I believe that this is an accepted fact between the provinces and the central Government, and I believe also that if he is sincere in his policy—he is always so quick to prove that this is so—he will leave it as it is, merely as education and until such time as the Bantu states require and demand the right to establish these universities. Why does he not leave the status quo as it is, or is there perhaps a problem which is arising already? Will he tell us whether there is a problem, or not a problem? Why is he amending the Act at the moment?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is not afraid to reply. He talks about sucking-pigs and rabbits, but he does not give any replies to the questions we put to him. He says that the Bantu Governments accept that there is a division in education.

† The Transkei Constitution Act was passed in 1963, in other words, 10 years ago. Why has it only become necessary now, after 10 years, to amend this Act if there has been no trouble? When did they find that for legal purposes only there had to be a change? If no problems have arisen over a period of 10 years, why is it necessary to change it? I cannot understand that. If the Bill had been passed last year and they suddenly found that problems were now arising and that therefore it is necessary to amend the Act to avoid further problems, I could understand that, but this law has been in force for ten years. Surely something must have happened. Why do they come forward with this amendment all of a sudden? The hon. the Deputy Minister said—I want to get this quite right—that if the leaders of the Bantu Governments wanted to discuss this matter with him, he would be prepared to discuss it. Did I understand it correctly?

Yes.

He says that is correct. Were they then not consulted about this amendment? We have not been told any of these things; he has not told us what the problem is.

I shall reply to you.

It is no good just saying: “There was a division”. In his Second Reading speech he said there were problems. I have asked him what those problems are; why does he not tell us what the problems are? He has not told us yet. These are not rabbits which we are chasing. I want to ask him: What are the problems?

The hon. the Minister, while replying to questions earlier on, said that no request had been received from any of the homelands for the transfer of or a greater share in university education. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is not aware—I saw it in the Press myself—that the acting head of the KwaZulu Government, Mr. Nxumalo, specifically stated that they wish the universities to be transferred to them? Moreover, the hon. Minister tells us that it would create an impossible position if universities were to be transferred to the homelands because there are still many homelands and Bantu peoples who do not have their own universities. In other words, it seems to be the case—and I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could correct me on this matter—that the transfer of university education to homelands in South Africa is really subject to the condition that each of the various homelands, and there are eight or nine of them, has a fully-fledged university. Surely, that would put a homeland such as KwaZulu in a most difficult position. The argument which one uses in respect of Fort Hare that, although it is situated in the Transkei, it draws Xhosas from the Transkei, and the argument one may possibly be using in respect of Turfloop, that it draws students from various homelands, because there are various homelands for the Sotho-speaking communities, cannot be applied by the hon. the Minister to the university in KwaZulu, Ngoya. This is a university which is situated in Zululand. There is only one Zulu university and only one Zulu-speaking homeland. So, as far as that argument is concerned, I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why KwaZulu should be prevented from having control at this particular stage. I ask it particularly with reference to the fact that Mr. Nxumalo has already asked for the transfer of university education to KwaZulu. At least, this is according to the information I have at my disposal. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will furnish me with a reply on that score.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Central that KwaZulu is not even a self-governing area yet. Is he not aware of that? KwaZulu is not a self-governing area. Now the hon. member will probably say that that is also the fault of the Government. I want to say at the outset that the people, as they develop, come forward of their own accord when they are in a position to perform this task. As far as political development is concerned, KwaZulu has lagged behind, but not because it was held back by the Government. Now the hon. member simply wants the university to be transferred there. If we were to argue about fundamentals, I should say that when they attain that status, they can discuss the matter. There is nothing to prevent them from doing that. I said I realized myself that there might be mutual problems between them and that it would perhaps be better for each to have a university. But I did not say that it is absolutely impossible for university education to be handed over to them before each of them has a fully-fledged university. Hon. members will appreciate that different peoples are served by such a university. This could cause problems for us and for them. We must therefore proceed slowly and apply the wisdom we have as best we can. That is what is at issue, and I cannot see why hon. members are so overhasty at this stage.

† The hon. member for Transkei commented on what I supposedly said during my Second Reading speech. What I said during my Second Reading speech was the following: “The meaning of the expression ‘Bantu education’ is clarified and the legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei are extended.”

*Now I do not know. I have now explained to the hon. member what problems there may be. I have quoted to the hon. member the verbatim report of the speech I made.

But what are the problems?

I said there might be problems among various peoples if the control of a university were to be handed over to one of them. This is not what I said in my Second Reading speech but I did in fact mention it in the debate. I think it is now quite clear what the position is here. There is an accepted undertaking which still exists between the homeland governments and the hon. the Minister at present. Because there is a discrepancy between the legal position and this undertaking, we are simply rectifying matters by changing the Act and making it clear. The hon. member for Albany now asks why this is necessary. Yesterday it was also asked why this should be rectified if there is a discrepancy between a regulation and an Act. If there is no difficulty, we simply leave it as it is. But, surely, if there are any discrepancies, if there is anything which is not clear and if there are matters which could give rise to problems and friction, it is simply a matter of common sense to rectify and to clarify matters also in writing. Why could it not also be rectified in writing so that everyone knows exactly what he has and what his position is? It must be stated in the Act that this is the position. I shall leave the matter at that, and I hope it is now clear to hon. members that there is nothing sinister about the matter. It is simply a question of a natural development and one where an existing position has to be rectified in the Act.

Question put: That paragraph (a) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, ÍL; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—86: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 15:

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

This amendment is similar to the amendment in clause 9 on which we divided a few moments ago. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister, in dealing with this amendment, said that this process was “ ’n natuurlike ontwikkeling”. It is not a “natuurlike ont-wikkeling”; it is a “natuurlike agteruitgang”. How can he pretend that the taking away of a right is an “ontwikkeling”? I asked him whether there had been any consultation with the Transkei Government and he did not answer the question, but he did tell me that if the African leaders wished to discuss this matter with him they could do so. While the hon. member for Durban Central was speaking, he interjected that KwaZulu was not a self-governing reserve and therefore it did not have the authority to control its own education. But the amendment that we are now dealing with amends the Bantu Homelands Constitution Act, which can affect KwaZulu in time to come. I want to know whether there was any consultation with KwaZulu leaders on this amendment. Was the matter discussed with them at all? I want to ask him whether KwaZulu is not one of the problems that he was talking about. Is that not why the Government has come forward with this amendment to the Act? You see, Sir, in yesterday’s Daily News there is a report of an interview with the acting head of the KwaZulu Government and it says this—

I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is because of problems that they are having with KwaZulu that they have seen fit to amend the Act, because there is no gainsaying the fact that this amendment which the Minister now proposes is taking away from the powers which can be granted to the councils. After nearly an hour’s debate here this afternoon he has still not told us with which problems he is faced. We have asked him time and again. All he says is that it was never intended and that they know that they were not intended to have university education under their control. He said, “Daar mag probleme tussen die volke wees”. But there cannot be “probleme tussen die volke” if they control their own universities, and they won’t ask for the control of their own university unless they can control it themselves. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in replying to the previous debate, said, “Dit is nie onmoontlik dat universitêre onderwys aan hulle oorhandig sal word nie”. Then he will have to amend this Act again if he wants to give them university education. If he does not have any trouble at the moment, if he does not have any problems, why does he not leave the law as it is now so that he can hand over university education to them when the time is ripe and they need it?

The hon. the Minister told us he is experiencing certain problems under the present set-up.

I did not say I was experiencing problems.

Then to prevent problems. The hon. the Minister said it is necessary to implement the clause so that we could prevent problems. The position is now this. There are political figures and political leaders in the homelands. What is the position of those leaders in respect of university matters? If this legislation is passed it means, in truth, that they can have absolutely no say about that. I now find Chief Buthelezi, inter alia, doing this—

What is the position in respect of Chief Buthelezi now? If this clause is passed, it surely means that the hon. the Minister and the Government are trying to cut him off altogether from any share in the universities, and then this conduct of his is completely out of order. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether this statement from the chief minister of KwaZulu is, consequently, completely out of order in the light of this legislation.

I have been trying repeatedly to make the Opposition understand what this is all about, that it is merely a matter of a concept that exists, a practice that exists, in order to bring this into line with the Act so that a misunderstanding cannot crop up. That is the position. Now they want to mention specific cases, particularly in connection with the utterances of Chief Gatsha Buthelezi in America and elsewhere. That is the type of thing I warned them against. In this Parliament we must please not try to exaggerate every small matter that is reported in the Press concerning what some or other Bantu leader supposedly said in order to try to create embarrassment and cause problems. I have now asked them very nicely, and I hope it will not be necessary to repeat this. I have said that this kind of thing will boomerang. It will only create unnecessary problems. The present position is such that neither the hon. the Minister nor I reply to Press statements about what Chief Buthelezi or anyone else has supposedly said. If we were now to enter into public discussions with those people, to whom our doors are open so that they may come and discuss their problems, where is one going to end? How is one going to maintain good relations by discussions through the Press when in 99% of cases one does not even know if something has been correctly reported? That is why I say that we take note of that, but these Bantu leaders all know that they can make representations and can come along and conduct a discussion with us. This is done regularly when they have problems. I therefore do not want to express myself in connection with reports that have appeared, and I do want to say again that the question of problems, which I have said could develop, is just to make it clear that misunderstanding or points of friction must not be created unnecessarily. Here we have the present position, and we are correcting this in the Act so that it can be maintained. I have also indicated that each homeland does not have a university as yet. Now he asks whether I consulted the Transkei. The hon. member knows, of course, that Fort Hare is not in the Transkei, but in the Ciskei. There we have two authorities over people who are very closely related to one another, because they are all Xhosa. I do not say it will happen, but it could happen that the one obtains a university and the other does not. The people speak of the fact that at some time or other they will come together, co-operate and go forward as one country and people. I do not think we must do anything to create problems for them by giving the one what one cannot give the other. It is things like this that must be handled delicately. At Turfloop in the Leboa area there is a university. The Machangaans and the Tswana attend it. If one is to grant it to them there, one could subsequently have them feel amongst themselves that it is not the same for everyone. I am mentioning these as possibilities. It may not happen in practice. I ask the hon. member again not to try to dredge up and cause differences where none exist. Nowhere have I said that there are problems, but I do say that we are going to have problems if matters are not clarified. I think I have thereby put things as well as I could, and I ask hon. members again to handle this matter with great circumspection.

Question put: That paragraph (a) stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

AYES—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, R. F.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Jager, P. R.; De Klerk, F. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward. S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H.C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Loots, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Otto, J. C.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C. Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, J. E.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rall, J. L; Rall, J. W.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Smit, H. H.; Swanepoel, J. W. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Wyk, H. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Weber, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé P. C. Roux, W. L. D. M. Venter.

NOES—37: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Fourie, A.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hughes, T. G.; Kingwill, W. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Title agreed to (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is a very important clause in this legislation, and gives the hon. the Minister the right to decide whether officials, who want to be transferred to the university, may make such a choice. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not like to take the Committee into his confidence and more or less give us an idea of how many officials will be involved, what is planned as far as they are concerned, more or less how many, according to his view, are going to join these various faculties, how many are going to remain with the Department and what the future is going to be tor those who have decided not to remain with the department and not to join a university either. I think it is necessary for us to have at least an idea of what the future of these officials will be because this is well-nigh the foremost clause in this legislation. If the hon. the Minister has no idea, we accept, of course, that he does not know this yet, at this stage, but I think the Committee would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could just sketch a picture for us of who are all involved and what their futures are going to be.

Mr. Chairman, the changeover will, in actual fact, only be taking place at the end of the present academic year. I cannot give the hon. member a figure, but I can assure him that by far the majority—I would say 90%—of the present staff will remain in their present posts, depending on the enrolment of students next year. In the event of some of the lecturers and professors wanting to come over to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, we have also made arrangements in respect of their leave conditions. They will not suffer financially. At the present moment, however, I cannot give the number. It also depends upon the dean of each faculty who must decide what course he wants to follow and whether some of the subjects can be consolidated with other universities. I do not think it is possible to give particulars during the course of the present academic year. Any changes will only take place at the end of the academic year. Therefore I shall not be able to give any figures now. I should like to give the officials concerned the assurance that there is going to be no disruption. If they cannot be accommodated there with the same leave conditions, etc., they will be transferred to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

Mr. Chairman, on a previous occasion, with the hon. the Minister, we dealt with the question of research projects, research trends, etc. The Minister then answered and said that this would, for the most part, remain with the Department as such. We are, in addition, interested in, and would like to obtain information from the hon. the Minister about, the extension services that were tied up with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and which were insufficient, during his and his predecessors’ time, to even have the results published and to bring them to the attention of the producers. If this was the case, even as far as the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is concerned, with the staff which it had for that purpose and which was involved in the extension services, I want to ask whether the extension services as such are now going to be taken over by the universities and intensified, or will we still sit with the same problems? Are the extension services in connection with our research projects in agriculture, and the results of research—I am not speaking now of general agricultural training—going to be taken over by the universities? There was a crying shortage of this extension work in the country. May we also have the undertaking that they will do it as well or better, or is it to remain with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services?

Mr. Chairman, extension activities still remain the function of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

But the staff goes over.

No, the extension staff does not. The researchers of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services remain with the ten institutes I told hon. members about the day before yesterday, but the teaching, the educational part, is the only part that is going to the university. Research and extension work are out- and-out a task of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. The hon. member rightly refers to the shortage of staff. We would all very much like to have more extension officers in this country. We have what we have today at tremendous cost, but one simply cannot get or keep these people. We are endeavouring to get increasingly more extension officers, but the hon. member must not think for one moment, however, that extension work and research are now becoming the tasks of the university. It is true that the university is going to do research at some of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services’ experimental farms, and there will consequently be co-operation between the two. However, it is just the training of students that is being affected here; this is being taken away from the Department of agricultural Technical Services, but definitely not extension activities.

Mr. Chairman, surely extension services do not only involve the results of research, experimental farms, etc. Extension services also have to do with agricultural training to a certain degree. In the universities no provision has been made for extension services as such in connection with the student’s education. This training is now becoming a faculty and taking on much greater proportions than it had at the universities. What will the position then be? Is the Department of Agricultural Technical Services solely going to retain extension services in connection with the functions that it still fulfils, i.e. in relation to research farms and experimental farms, as such, while extension services and agricultural training as such, transfer to the universities? If that is not so, is there now divided control in connection with extension services?

Mr. Chairman, there is no division of control. We are still retaining our eight agricultural regions, each with a regional head, his research staff and his extension staff. The man from Grootfontein, who it doing research there in connection with wool, has no ties with a university. He did have his training there, it is true, but he is one of our officials who is carrying on with research work at Grootfontein and who conveys it through our department by his extension service to the farmer. It has always been a divorced function. The legislation here envisages only one thing, and that is that the division of agricultural education, at the universities only, and not at agricultural colleges, is transferring from our department to the Department of National Education. This is all it entails. Other than that the “works” are still the same as in the past.

Mr. Chairman, it is only two years ago that we debated in this House a Bill dealing with Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. We had there a similar situation to that which arises in terms of this clause which we are discussing now, where the staffs of certain local authorities were to be taken over by the Bantu Administration Boards which were to be created. In order to protect the staff of these local authorities at that time, this Committee considered a clause which ran to over five pages in all its subsections in the Act as it is today. We have this Minister coming here, dealing with precisely the same situation, but presenting us with a clause which is barely half a page in length and which I believe only deals with a portion of the problems which are going to be created as far as those employees themselves are concerned. What we are trying to ascertain, what the hon. member for Newton Park tried to get from the hon. the Minister, is what protection is envisaged in this Bill as it is before us now, protection for the employees of his department, those employees who are now going to be transferred to the employ of the respective universities?

Look at the Bill and you will see.

An hon. member on the other side who cannot speak English, obviously, suggests that I have a look at the Bill; I will then be able to see what protection there is. But where in this Bill is there any reference to pension rights? What happens to the pension rights of these civil servants who are now going to be transferred, because the clause reads—

Except where he objects. What happens to his pension rights? There is no mention of pension rights here. There is no mention of what is going to happen to the person who uses the right which is given to him in terms of clause 3(a) where it is stated that he can indicate within 30 days that he does not wish to be transferred to a university? But, Sir, there is nothing in this Bill to protect him. The hon. the Minister just says: “I give you my assurance that he will be fairly treated”; but this is small comfort to the civil servant who finds himself in a situation, through no fault of his own—except the fact that he serves the State—where he is being transferred to a new boss, under a new set of regulations and terms of employment. He will possibly—I say “possibly”, because unfortunately I have not been able to get the true facts—be under a different pension scheme, and his whole future regarding promotion can be affected. All these matters should be dealt with here, because—I want to use the words of the hon. the Prime Minister—these are not mere labour units we are dealing with; these are people with souls. This is the point. It is the duty of this Committee to protect the interests of those civil servants. These are people who have given many years to the service of the State and who are now being shunted over to the employ of a university. Sir, I submit that there will be different conditions of employment and that we should have further details from the hon. the Minister as to how these people will be treated before we approve of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District—I think he once said so in this House—was well educated in these matters as an ex-magistrate. I cannot therefore see how he can be asking me a question concerning these civil servants while fully realizing that, if we transfer a civil servant from the Department of Agriculture to, say, the Department of Economic Affairs, he remains a civil servant. He is still protected by the pension provisions applicable to both departments. Now we are transferring one civil servant from the Department of Technical Services to the Department of National Education. He remains a civil servant. What does the hon. member want to protect? Is he playing for votes, or what is his problem? I cannot see any problem. Nothing is going to be taken away from these people; they are completely happy. You can ask anyone of these people; they are satisfied, because we give them our word that they are going to be under the same Civil Service Act and are not going to lose any pension rights whatsoever.

Does an employee of a university fall under that same Act?

Yes. He is under the Minister of National Education.

Mr. Chairman, I regret to have to differ with the hon. the Minister. Unless there has been a change recently, of which I am not aware, employees of the universities are not civil servants in terms of the Public Service Act. This is the fact of the matter: At the moment there are people who fall under the protection of the Public Service Act and Public Service Commission; but immediately they are transferred to the employ of the universities, they will lose that protection. They will not be civil servants. They do not fall under the Public Service Act. Does the hon. the Minister agree with me, or not? We must either agree on this point, or else there is no point in arguing any further. The hon. the Minister says they do. I believe they do not. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of the Interior is not here to elucidate this matter. I believe that they will cease to be civil servants. They will no longer have the protection of the Public Service Act, which also covers their pension rights.

I think it is fully justified that we do not agree with each other; otherwise, I would have been a Sap, too. But he must answer me this one question: At the moment a university professor receives his cheque from a State department, in this case, the Department of Technical Services. In future, who is going to pay him his cheque? He will be a servant of the Minister of National Education.

No!

Of course, yes. We had an agreement between our department and the principal of the university that we are not going to take away anything. The money he is paying over to the professor, he is going to get from the Minister of National Education. I cannot see anything wrong in it.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I think that there is a small mistake somewhere. We want an assurance from the hon. gentleman and that is why I asked him whether he could give us an idea of the number of officials involved in this matter. The simple reason for this question is that these people must choose whether they want to go over to the university, or whether they want to stay on with the department, and whether they perhaps want to choose a completely new career. The chances are that such a person will choose to go to a university, or to remain with the department. If he goes to the department, certain problems may arise because, for example, he has not been employed through all these years in the extension services division of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and his promotion in that direction may be adversely affected after all those years of service he has had. All we want from the hon. the Minister is, firstly, an assurance for the people who want to be transferred to the universities that they will not be any the worse off, and, secondly, that, if they decide to remain with the department but to switch over to a different direction, they will in no way in future be adversely affected as far as their promotion, etc., is concerned. Sir, I wish to quote an example in this respect. Let us take the example of two agricultural students, both of whom obtained a doctor’s degree in agriculture. Both of them graduated in 1949. The one decided to do research work and the other decided to remain in the department and to do extension work. The promotion of the one doing extension work goes on, but what is the position of the one associated with the university and who now returns to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services? What will be his position in such an instance? We just wish to have the assurance from the hon. gentleman that his future will not be adversely affected. Secondly, we want the assurance that his pension benefits and salary benefits which he has enjoyed up to that stage, will continue unchanged. This clause 3 is not clear on these points. We can understand that the hon. the Minister perhaps does not want to have a lengthy clause to explain everything that will be done in future, but then it is at least still the right thing, for the sake of the record, to have the Minister’s assurance in this regard, because those officials are concerned about this matter. They discussed matters with hon. members on this side of the House. They discussed this situation with me personally. All that we ask the hon. the Minister is: Explain to us exactly how clause 3 will be applied so that none of them will be adversely affected in any way in future.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I said that we do not want any disruption. The hon. member for Newton Park is just as aware as I am that we have an acute shortage of agricultural scientists. It would be unwise of me or the department or a university to interfere with the benefits of those people. Our aim is to give them the same whether they remain in the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, or whether they go over to the university. If the person says that he does not wish to go over to the university and we can accommodate him in Agricultural Technical Services, he remains in the service of the department under the existing conditions. But our aim is to bring about uniformity as far as pensions at the university and in Agricultural Technical Services are concerned. Last year steps were taken in this direction and the pension will be more or less the same in both cases. But the hon. member for Newton Park says that it is no use my saying so; he wants it to be written into the law. Fortunately the hon. member for Newton Park is wise enough to realize that one cannot have a lengthy clause in which everything is spelt out. I want three changes to be effected in the subsequent clauses because the universities requested that these changes be effected for the sake of co-operation regarding experimental farms, etc., for which the hon. member himself asked the other day. We do not want to do anybody down or cause any harm to come to any person. If the hon. member will only understand and believe this we shall save a great deal of time. The hon. member is entitled to ask those questions, and I just want to give him the assurance he asked for a moment ago: None of the benefits of these people will be taken away, because then we are going to lose their services.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the taking over of these faculties will result in certain departments of agricultural faculties being declared obsolete, or, if they are not declared obsolete, whether they will be transferred to other departments? Sir, by this time the department must surely have made a survey and they must know whether there are members on the lecturing staff whom they will not be able to take over. The hon. the Minister should inform us so that we may know exactly what the position is, because here we have people who have done a great deal for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and for agricultural training and education through the years and who, I fear, might for some reason be thrown out into the street …

No.

… because the various universities will not be able to accommodate them and because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will not be able to accommodate them either. The hon. the Minister must at least give us an idea, because I am sure that surveys have been made by this time. My information—it may be wrong, and the hon. the Minister may have more information than we do—is that certain members of the lecturing staff of these universities have been told, not in so many words, that they have reached the end of the road. It would be a pity, Sir, if we were to lose some of these people. Many of them are not old people, they are not middle-aged people; they are still young.

How young?

They are still as young as the hon. member for Tygerberg, not that he means much in this respect. These people are still young and they can still do much for agriculture, and these are the people we are pleading for. We should like to learn what the hon. the Minister’s plan is regarding them. This is an important clause and I do not think that we on this side of the House can allow this clause to be approved unless we have an assurance by the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Sir, I know the hon. member for Newton Park allows himself to be led by newspaper stories. After those newspaper gossip, he also paid a visit to a certain university. He went there on a scavenger hunt. I told him the other day that that particular university, the University of the Free State, has up to the present taken no decision regarding how many lecturers it will retain and how many it cannot accommodate.

That is a serious problem.

Yes, it is a problem.

What guarantee do we have that it will be possible to solve that problem?

The problem is that one is dealing here with a faculty which now has to be financed by a university. All the other faculties of the university are financed by means of a per capita subsidy paid by the Government. The problem is not what they say it is. The problem is that at this stage the universities are still in the dark as to what the subsidy will be per agricultural student. As vet this has not been determined. Now the hon. gentlemen come along and talk about the lecturers’ pensions being involved in this. Surely clause 3 is very clear. At this stage every one of these lecturers is still an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. At this stage there is not a single one of them who is going over to a university, unless he chooses to do so. He has the choice whether to go or not.

But what choice does he have further on?

Listen first until I have finished. He has the choice to go. If he does not go his pension is not affected. If he decides to go he will at least ascertain in advance that his pension will not be affected, and I can tell you now that his pension will not be affected because the pensions are the same. Therefore the pensions of these people do not enter the picture at all. The one and only matter which does enter the picture, is the person’s promotion possibilities. Now I ask you, Sir, who can give any assurance as to the future possibilities of promotion of any official.

But he did previously have promotion possibilities.

No, he loses nothing which he previously had. That is very clear. For the present the salary of a university professor, to mention just one example, is paid by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services plus an additional supplementary amount which the university pays him because he receives a slightly higher salary there. This Bill makes provision for such a person not to lose a single cent in salary. But there is the other aspect which does enter the picture. For that reason I asked the Minister the other day whether he would in fact use his influence to ensure that these people would not lose those additional benefits which they enjoyed at the university, such as free education for their children, and whether he would negotiate with the universities to obtain certain concessions from them so as to allow those lecturers who could not be accommodated at the universities, to continue making use of those facilities.

The clause puts it very clearly that an official of the State, an official of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, has the choice to go over to the university staff or not. I still contend, without calling the words of the Minister in question, that he is no longer, a civil servant when he is employed by the university. In other words, the facilities which were guaranteed to him while he was a civil servant, such as the continuation of his service if there is no misconduct on his part, and promotion from time to time, are now no longer guaranteed to him as a lecturer or a professor at the university.

One cannot guarantee promotion.

Naturally they do not guarantee promotion. If the hon. member will only give me a chance to finish what I am saying he will understand what I am trying to get at. The clause goes as far as laying down that not even his leave will be affected, but is silent on other benefits he has, such as pension rights, etc. Now I ask in all fairness whether the clause would have been so much longer if it did lay down that nothing would be taken away from him, not his pension rights nor anything else, and that if anything were to be affected it would rather be improved than the opposite. To me this seems to be the way of doing things, and that is how it ought to be. It must be laid down that a person would not lose his leave privileges if he made the change and that he would still get it at the university. He would fall under the control of a different authority; he would no longer be a civil servant. One would have to specify that any other benefits which he enjoyed, the so-called fringe benefits which he had in the Civil Service, would go along with him and would not be affected. I think the hon. the Minister should reconsider this Bill. We want to assist him in piloting this Bill through Parliament, but if this clause is phrased as weakly as this, we shall ultimately be obliged to object to it. The hon. the Minister must concede that the clause is not phrased in a way which makes it crystal clear.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot pass a Bill containing a clause which binds a new undertaking to having certain provisions in connection with pensions. What we are concerned with here is a “gentleman’s agreement”. The whole matter is concerned with the amendment of the Stellenbosch-Elsenburg Agricultural College Act of 1926. It was an old, traditional institution.

That is not all.

That is correct—it is not only concerned with that—but all of these other problems may be solved administratively. The hon. member for Newton Park asked me to give him the assurance that departments would not become obsolete. How can I do that? The hon. member, who is a practical person, must answer me.

I am worried about the officials.

If university B finds that it has a lecturer on, say, poultry and it has one student and university C also has a lecturer on poultry with two students and they agree to have that single student transferred to university C and to close down the department of poultry at university B, surely that is an arrangement which the universities must make between themselves, because they must ensure that they do not exceed their budgets. The hon. member agreed that while we did not wish to be mean and miserly, we did not wish to waste money either. Am I right or wrong? The hon. member for East London City said we would have to divide on this matter or obtain further particulars, etc. I say that we do not wish to take a right away from anyone, but the hon. member who, as a responsible person, has to protect the money of the taxpayer, can obviously not expect an assurance from me that no faculty or section will become obsolete. Surely that is unpractical; naturally I cannot bind myself to anything of this kind or give a guarantee for the future that the position will not arise that some members of the lecturing staff cannot be accommodated. In practice this may well happen, and members of the lecturing staff who cannot be accommodated at university B, C or whichever of the universities—I do not want to mention names—will at any time, while we have a shortage of these people, have the right to approach the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and to ask me to employ him as an extension or research officer in my Department. We shall employ him. That is how this matter will be handled in practice. The universities themselves will decide, and it is not our function to tell a university that we are discontinuing a particular division at the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and incorporating it with the university, but that we prescribe to the university to continue doing this or that. The only agreement which we have, is to tell the officials concerned that we shall not prejudice their pension benefits and salaries and that they may choose of their own free will whether they wish to stay with us or whether they wish to go to the university. Each one has a free choice. I said before that there might possibly be half a percent of these officials who did not pull their weight in the past and who might possibly be affected. From what I know of the members of the lecturing staff, all of them are people who will remain in their posts and they are of such a calibre that if they cannot be accommodated, they will be welcome at the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

Not all of them are civil servants and that is the difference.

The hon. member is a civil servant, too, because he also gets his cheque from the State.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister ended up on the note on which I want to begin. Are we ad idem? Will these people continue to be State employees or not? Will they continue to be civil servants or not, or will they be the employees of the university concerned?

Read the clause.

The hon. member says “read the clause”. I am going to read the clause for the benefit of hon. members and of the hon. the Minister who appear not to have understood what is written here. Clause 3 reads—

That means “civil servants”.

They are today civil servants.

He will no longer be a civil servant.

Except …

He will be a person employed by the university, “except”—and then we go to paragraph (a)—

[Interjections.]

These noisy gentlemen on my left must just wait a while and hear what I have to say. This is fine, if you give the civil servant 30 days to choose whether to give up all the rights and privileges he might have had as a civil servant and go into the employment of the university concerned. But what security are we offering that civil servant? It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that there is no need to put a long clause in this legislation. Why was it necessary to put such a long clause in the Bantu Administration Act of 1971? Exactly the same situation arises here. I want to quote from subsection (11) of section 10 of that Act:

on certain conditions and he shall:

Is this hon. Minister prepared to protect his employees to the same extent? This is merely one provision of the Act from which I have quoted which has five pages of provisions which take care of all the benefits, the pension rights and other rights of the State employees concerned. We are now transferring these State employees. I know it is impossible for the hon. the Minister to change this clause at this stage. It has been indicated that we are not happy with this clause and we are reaching the stage where we are now being forced to oppose it. I do not believe that we should, because I believe that this legislation is good and I believe that the intention of the Minister is good. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will give us an undertaking to have another look at this clause, and, if necessary to introduce a suitable amendment in the Other Place to protect these employees adequately. Those State employees are his employees and nobody else’s. In order to protect his own employees adequately, will he undertake to have another look at this clause and to bring a suitable amendment in the Other Place to give that protection to them?

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to look at this clause at any time and to amend it in the Other Place if necessary.

Hear, hear!

I want to give hon. members one assurance: The civil service had an agreement with the universities and other what we may call semi-State or semi-Government institutions, and in 1972 they decided to bring their pension funds in line. The reason why we did not receive any request from professors or people from the universities concerning this was that they were not afraid about their pension schemes. However, I can give hon. members an assurance that we shall look at the clause and, if necessary, we shall protect those people, because at the moment they are fully protected. The hon. member compared this with the Bantu Affairs Administration Act of 1971, but that cannot be done because here you have developed people discussing this thing amongst themselves. These people are not concerned about it because they take my word for it.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up a small matter for the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. Apparently he does not understand exactly what is involved here. He referred to the administration boards and the conditions of service which officials had at the municipalities. When the State took over these boards, it guaranteed all the rights and privileges they had at the municipalities. In that regard the hon. member is quite correct, but what the hon. member does not understand is that these officials are not being taken over by the State, but in fact by the university. After all, the State cannot guarantee its conditions of service to people working for another employer. If those people came back from the university to the State, the State can guarantee those conditions of leave. How can the State guarantee all privileges, leave privileges, and so forth, to a person working for another employer if, for instance, that person is guilty of misconduct there or does not render satisfactory service? How can the State in such a case accept responsibility for his conduct at another department? Surely, he is no longer an employee of the State. That is what the whole matter is about.

Mr. Chairman, I think that this discussion has shown clearly that we are not satisfied that there is adequate protection for the officials concerned. However, in view of the assurance which the hon. the Minister has given us, that he will look at this again with a view to giving them the protection which we are seeking to give them, we will not oppose this clause.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment further to the request made by the hon. member for Newton Park. We could not print it before the time. Therefore I move—

Do I have to explain it? It deals with Elsenburg, etc.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, this amendment is acceptable. The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister is to my mind a good one.

Say “thank you”. It would be common decency to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, here I have an amendment as well. I discussed it with the rector yesterday, and he said that the university would feel happier if we added this to the clause.

Therefore I move—

Provided that the council of the University of Stellenbosch may from the date of commencement of this section until such date as the Minister may at any time after the said commencement determine by notice in the Gazette, continue the university activities of the Faculty of Agriculture of the said university on the experimental farms Elsenburg and Mariendhal, on such basis as the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, may determine from time to time.

Mr. Chairman, this, too, is a very good amendment which the hon. the Minister is moving here now. We accept it as such and say thank you very, very much!

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, all we have here is an administrative arrangement. I move—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express a few ideas in regard to the combating of agricultural pests. We are in any event pleased that the State deems this so necessary that it undertakes to take all the obligations on itself. It became apparent long ago that the ordinary farmer, the ordinary owners of farms, and so on, are not able to bear these obligations over the years. Now we are pleased that the State has made this undertaking to take upon itself the general obligation. According to this Bill the farmer cannot say that he is avoiding his obligations altogether or that he has been deprived of them. In this case we know that the circumstances are such that the State has only undertaken to do so because it was impossible to implement in the past. What I want to assert here is that as far as I am concerned, and this is generally accepted by our farmers, there is no doubt in our minds that the combating of the locust plague cannot be successful unless the farmer himself is also involved in this. I am saying this because the combating process is such that it does not always fit in with the methods which the State applies to combat this pest. If there is a small-scale outbreak, as has happened in the past, the position is that before the State machinery comes into operation the plague has assumed such proportions that damage of the soil has already occurred. We know from experience—I do not want to oppose the hon. the Minister, but would like to help him in this respect—that we have a good Minister and a State which will do everything within its means as is being proved here again, to take the responsibility upon itself. But the duty and task of the State is to eliminate the locus plague completely, an undertaking which also pleases us. We also know that the farmers not only see the eradication of this pest as their task, but also want the assurance that their lands will receive timely protection against damage. Since this is the case, we ask that when minor outbreaks occur, before the machinery of the State can be put into operation, it is essential that something be done. I should like the Minister to listen to this. Experience has taught us that the method of combating locusts is such that it is first necessary to wait for the small groups to come together. When the small groups have come together, and it is regarded as being worth the effort and the cost of using the State machinery is justified, the damage has already been done on our farms. Sir, there is nothing today which preys more on our minds than that we should see lands which we have been protecting over the years ultimately being ruined by this small destroyer before the State can really act as it should.

I come now to clause 17(2) which reads—

Now we know that when small outbreaks occur, the Minister is able to use his own discretion and say: “Apart from what the Act provides, I can say what further steps should be taken”. In such circumstances, small quantities of poison can be given to farmers to help them before their lands are destroyed. Sir, I must say that I have nearly been killed by some of these vehicles. If one requests a vehicle from the State to combat a small swarm of locusts, the driver sometimes turns so sharply with that tremendously heavy vehicle, particularly if the veld is wet or very dry, that all one sees is grass flying. When that happens I feel like running in front of the vehicle. I find it terrible to see my grass being destroyed and a terrible fuss being made about killing a few locusts. The tracks they leave behind remain for two to three years in any case, so that I can still point them out in my lands today. I think in such circumstances the Minister should be able to exercise his discretion and say to the farmers, “We will supply the necessary poison”. We have the necessary equipment. There is no longer a farmer today who does not have a portable sprayer. By supplying him with the necessary poison the State will be saved the tremendous expense of sending out a vehicle 30/40 and sometimes even 100 miles to combat a small group of locusts. I think that task may be entrusted to the farmer, and we shall gladly undertake it. If this cannot be done I want to ask the Minister to take this into consideration in future and to see whether we cannot amend the legislation, so that the powers may be conferred upon the Minister enabling him to use his own discretion in this connection.

As the hon. member for Newton Park indicated on Monday, we support this Bill. It is simply a consolidation of previous Acts. Sir, we do, however, have misgivings in regard to certain clauses. One of these clauses is clause 2, which deals with the registration fees for nurseries which are being increased from R20 to R100, an increase of no less than 500%. We on this side feel that small nurseries could be prejudiced, that small nurseries are being discriminated against in this way, and that this could create monopolies. Sir, these small nurseries have also made their contribution. I think the last thing we should do in this country is to allow monopolies to be created and an advantage given to some. This will have another effect as well, i.e. that the entire object of the Bill, which is after all to eradicate pests, could be defeated. If the registration fees are too high, some of those nurseries that cannot afford them will be forced to go underground. They will simply refrain from registering; they will continue to cultivate and the pests will be spread even further afield. For that reason we want to recommend very strongly that these registration fees be applied on a sliding scale.

Another clause which we are not happy about is the one dealing with locusts. The hon. member for Prieska has discussed this, and I want to associate myself with what he said. He is also an expert on locusts in that part of the world, and I want to associate myself completely with what he said. According to this clause the onus is now being removed from the farmer and transferred to the State. The only obligation which the farmer now has is to report the circumstances to a magistrate, a justice of the peace, a police officer or to any officer, and that person shall then, as the Bill reads, act “as soon as possible”. I shall return to these words, for we know what “as soon as possible” means in the Public Service. The person to whom the circumstances are reported will then transmit the information to the Secretary, and the Minister will take the necessary steps. In other words, Sir, the entire onus is now being placed on the State, and it is probably quite right that it should be placed on the State. But the point is that the State does not have the machinery with which to accomplish this; the State is not able to do it. In the case of a major locust plague it does not have the necessary machinery in the first place, and it is not able to get the people together quickly enough. As the hon. member for Prieska said, they first wait until there are enough locusts before the machinery is put into operation; then it is reported “as soon as possible”; then it has to go to Pretoria; then it has to go back to the Cape, for the officials are here; then, after a time, it eventually reaches the Minister, and by then the entire Karoo has been denuded, as has happened on two occasions already.

That is nonsense.

The member for Graaff-Reinet says I am talking nonsense. Sir, is he aware of the complaints which came from Prieska and his own constituency after the last locust outbreak? Does he know how long it took to eradicate those locusts? They denuded the entire Karoo. Sir, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet knows about the red tape in the Public Service. He knows what happened recently in his constituency with the drought declaration. He knows about the red tape and how long all this took. The applications were sent in on 22nd December. On the 17th January they were returned to Richmond, and had been rejected. They said that application should again be made at the end of February. The chairman of the National Woolgrowers’ Association, Mr. Fonnie Paul, had to make representations to the Minister because the hon. member did not do his work. And then, on the 23rd January, Richmond was declared to be a drought-stricken area. But did they declare the area to be such as from that date? No, it had to wait until 1st February. More sheep had to die first. Then that hon. member tells me that I am talking nonsense!

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I shall return to the Bill. I have said that the hon. the Minister does not have the machinery. When there is an outbreak of locusts, one cannot find the people. It appears from this legislation that farmers are no longer going to be supplied with poison. [Interjection.] Yes, it was in the newspaper reports. It was in Die Burger, the servile newspaper of the hon. the Minister. That was the conclusion they drew. I do not know why they do not want to supply the farmers with poison now. I do not know whether it is a matter of not having any confidence in … [Interjections.] But, Sir, the hon. member for Prieska has only just finished telling you that they first wait until the swarm is large enough before the machinery is put into operation. I shall tell you what I am advocating. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet need not become upset now. All I am advocating is that they cut out this red tape. The Public Service must realize that there is such a thing as a telephone. If they would only pick up the telephone it would be possible to speak directly to the Minister or the Secretary. But no, it must first go to Middelburg and then it must go to Pretoria, and then it must go to Cape Town. This takes weeks and months, and it costs money. Sir, there are 6 000 officials in the Department of Agriculture.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I do not have the time to reply to questions now. Now I want to say that the greatest task of those 6 000 officials is to fight their way out of that mass of red tape in which they are entangled and to which they are chained. All that I am asking is that the Minister should make it easy for this department to function so that we can eradicate the locusts.

Sir, there is not much wrong with the Bill as such; it is its application that I am referring to. For that reason I want to make this plea to the Minister. He is a new Minister, and I know that he has great intentions. All I am asking him to do is that he should approach this legislation in the same spirit as we do, namely to eradicate the locusts as quickly as possible without all this red tape.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town became very worked up about locusts, but I am certain that he does not even know what the English equivalent for the Afrikaans expression “voetganger-sprinkaan” is. I should like to say something about the clauses which deal with nurseries. I think it is a very good thing that these clauses form part of the legislation, for in the first place it protects the public against irresponsible persons, and in the second place it ensures that the farmers receive only the best breeding material, and this is very important.

I also welcome the principle in the Bill making it possible for nurseries, under certain circumstances, to be compensated if some of their plant material has to be destroyed. Then, in connection with the licence fee of R100, I do think the Minister should consider giving small nurseries a discount. Big nurseries make a lot of money, but there are also many small nurseries. Perhaps it is a farmer who does his own breeding, who follows sound practices and breeds good material, and who then disposes of his remaining young trees to other farmers. I do think that there are possibly cases where concessions can be made in the case of smaller nurserymen. It is of course essential that there should be proper control, and to have good control, there will have to be enough inspectors. For that reason a case can also be made out for increased licence fees. But I do think the Minister could give his attention to this.

We have to exercise control over diseases and pests, but we read nothing here about virus diseases. A virus disease is very difficult to spot. Often one only spots it ten years after one has planted a tree. For that reason I simply thought that, in addition to this legislation, there ought to be regulations in regard to plant material which is used in nurseries, e.g. for the registration of parent trees. In this connection I want to say that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and the Citrus Exchange took the first steps towards introducing graft-wood certification and variety improvement programmes in 1972. This is an essential development in regard to our nurseries, and even if it is not being included in this legislation, the Minister should consider looking at these aspects in future.

In clause 3 it is stated that plans must comply with certain requirements, and then, in clause 33(l)(e), it is said that plants must comply with certain standards. When I look in the dictionary I see that standards can refer to quality and to grade. But I think there is another aspect in respect of which this legislation could have gone a little further, and it is in regard to the purity of plant material and the trueness to type of plants. I think it is essential that a buyer, when he buys a young tree or a plant, should at least have the certainty that he will receive good plant material, that it will be free of diseases and insects and that it will be true to type, in other words, that it will be the variety and quality that he wants.

I did not intend to deal with locusts but I must say that the moving appeal of the hon. member for King William’s Town really brought to my mind how fortunate the hon. the Minister is in having the United Party suggest that the farmers carry part of the responsibility in dealing with locusts. Usually it is a case of appealing to the Minister for the Government to take the whole responsibility, and now we get a case where the Minister is prepared to accept the whole responsibility and where a representative of the farmers says, “We are prepared to carry our share of the burden.” My mind went back, Sir, some years ago to when the late Col. Denys Reitz was Minister of Agriculture, and the farmer members of those days, particularly in the Nationalist Opposition, went for him baldheaded because the Government would not accept the full responsibility for expenditure incurred in wiping out locusts. I remember the then Minister getting more and more excited and exasperated as these attacks on him continued, until eventually, when he was winding up the debate, he jumped up and said, “Mr. Speaker, do hon. members on that side of the House expect me to get in an aeroplane with a butterfly-net and chase all over the sky catching the last locust with a butterfly-net? Is that what they want from the Government? They are not likely to have it.” Sir, think how fortunate the Minister is today when farmers come along to him and say, “We are willing to play a part in this campaign.”

Sir, my main reason for getting up was to deal with this question of the small nurseries, to which reference has already been made. I want to put a different point of view to the hon. the Minister. I am not going to traverse the ground that has been traversed by my hon. friend who spoke just before me. But I want to say that what we want of a nursery is that it shall be registered. The danger so often comes from the unregistered nursery. Whatever the department may do, and however it may go about it, the fact of the matter is that they have not got sufficient bodies to carry out a consistent, careful survey of the situation in South Africa so as to ensure that any unregistered nursery can be brought to book. They just have not got the officials to do that job, with the result that there are large numbers of small unregistered nurseries, and any one of those nurseries can bring in plant material which can start trouble going for the agricultural community which may cost the State, the country, many, many thousands of rands in the end.

Sir, I do not want to deal with any particular cases, but the hon. the Minister will not have to think back very far to recall cases which have happened recently where plant material has come into South Africa and is costing us—and is yet to cost us—who knows how many tens of thousands of rands. Sir, we want the nurseries to be registered. When a nursery is registered, then it is known; it can be identified; it can be watched and the necessary steps can be taken to see that it in fact keeps its stock clean. I repeat: It is not the big nursery, which is continually under surveillance, where you would anticipate trouble. You may get it there; I am not suggesting that you will not, but I say that the small unregistered nursery is the real danger. And I think that by having a flat rate of R100 we are frightening away the small nurserymen whom we want to bring out into the open. There ought to be no question whatever of revenue so far as this particular feature is concerned, that is to say, a registration fee. The question of revenue ought not to come into it. All we want is a purely nominal sum so that the small nurseries can feel that they can comfortably pay that sum. They would sooner be on the right side of the law, so they would register, and that is all we want. I appeal to the Minister to bring this registration fee down to a nominal amount and to get these people registered so as to bring them into the light of day. Let the department be in a position to know who they are and to go and inspect them and that sort of thing. Very often, Sir, the first indication that there is an unregistered nursery is when there is an outbreak of some plant disease in the vicinity or in the neighbourhood. It is a very dangerous thing, Sir, to tempt a small nursery with the introduction of plant material that has not passed the scrutiny of the department, that has not been through the scrutiny of the scientists attached to that department. If there is something rare or something of high value, the small nursery is tempted to bring in this plant material. It introduces it into our country and then the damage is done. I repeat, Sir, that we want every nursery registered. That should be the desideratum—to get every nursery registered, the small ones as well as the large ones. To levy an impost of R100 on the small nurseries is to make it almost certain that they will try to evade having to pay that money, and then they do not register. I do appeal to the Minister to take another look at this. We do not want to press him for a reply at the moment. He will no doubt want to discuss it with his officials. But let him put the question of revenue out of his mind. If he comes to the conclusion that this fee is standing in the way of ensuring the registration of the small nurseries, then let him bring it down to a nominal sum of R10 or even R5. It is not the amount of revenue that matters. What is necessary here is not revenue, but the scrutiny of the department of all these little nurseries so that they can nip in the bud the introduction of any plant material which is going to be a danger to the economy of South Africa.

I shall be very brief, Mr. Speaker. All of us agree on the principles. The hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned a very important matter in regard to virus-free grafting material. I think I can say on behalf of the K.W.V. and the Apricot and Peach Growers’ Association that they are very grateful for what the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is already doing and envisages doing in regard to the acquisition of virus-free grafting material. But I have only one question to put to the hon. the Minister.

As he knows, there are many wine farmers who frequently do their own grafting, simply to have their own planting stock for the next year. They are not registered nurserymen, but now it sometimes happens that, owing to drought conditions or other circumstances, that farmer is unable to sell his 5 000 or 10 000 shoots the next year, and that a neighbour wants to buy them from him. I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to be amenable here and in this case say to the man: “Very well, you have leave to sell those shoots, which you grafted for yourself, to your neighbour or to some other person, because you are unable to plant them this year.”

I also wish to refer to clause 16 of this Bill, which deals with the question of locusts. The hon. member for Prieska raised this matter. I know that the hon. gentleman, from the vast amount of experience he has had with locusts, is a kind of “mini” authority on the subject. I believe he knows far more about locusts than about politics and I certainly accept the advice he has given in respect of this Bill. He will recall that during the last outbreak of locusts, when we had two serious outbreaks, the first outbreak got out of hand because the State did not have the wherewithal effectively to control the outbreak in the early stages. I believe the Minister should listen to the plea of the hon. member for Prieska when he says that the farmer should be placed in a position to take effective steps in eradicating outbreaks when they do occur by making it possible for the farmers to have poison available at a strategic place and at a strategic time. I accept quite unreservedly that this should be done under the control of (a) the Minister and (b) the appropriate locust officers who are also employees of the State. I believe that if that principle is accepted and it is made clear to the farmers that that position obtains, we will not have a situation where we are confronted with two outbreaks whereas, in fact, we should have been able effectively to control the first outbreak.

Then there is another item in this clause which worries me. I am not an authority on legal language or even of the English language, but I wonder if “voetganger” is a terminological exactitude when describing in English a locust that has not yet acquired the senior status of having wings. This clause refer to a “voetganger”. To the best of my knowledge the Oxford Dictionary describes a locust in that stage of his career as a “hopper”. I am just asking whether the Minister has given this matter serious consideration and whether “voetganger” is infact now the accepted term for describing this particular stage of a locust’s life.

The hon. members for Newton Park, Worcester and Paarl asked for the registration fee of R100 to be reduced, or rather, as hon. members suggested, for the word “more” to be substituted for the word “less”. We shall effect this change as asked for by the hon. members.

†The hon. member for South Coast said that we must register all small nurserymen. Our problem is not the small nurseryman, but the smuggler. It is altogether a different story. For 16 years we have had a registration fee of R20. We have 52 officials working on this. We are not trying to cover expenses. If you want to cover expenses, the registration fee must be R1 000 or more. You cannot stop smuggling by means of this. You will always have the smugglers and usually they are the big ones; not the small nurseryman.

The small nursery is the link with the smuggler because it pays him to get smuggled plants.

But our experience in the past with eelworm, etc. showed that it was not the small nurseryman. The hon. member is making a big mistake if he thinks that we can stop smuggling by providing that every nursery should be registered. The Nursery Association came to us and asked us to increase the fee to R100. Some of the members even suggested a higher fee. They wanted a nursery to be a prestige undertaking. What is the use of levying a registration fee of only R20 permitting every Tom, Dick and Harry, and even people from Natal, to register. I think the hon. member and I are speaking the same language. I see his problem.

It is your problem.

We should not have the argument that the registration fee should be less, R5, R15 or R20 so that all people should be registered. The position is that all nurserymen should be registered. Nobody can put up a sign and sell trees if he is not registered. Our inspectors are paying these people visits, but in certain cases they have to travel 50, 60 miles to get to these farms. We are not going to cover our expenses with a registration fee of R100. We only want a nursery to be a prestige undertaking. However, I shall do what the Opposition and hon. members on this side are asking and change “minstens” to “hoogstens”. I cannot think of the English for these words at the moment. For me they are like “voetganger” and “hopper”—I seldom know the difference. I shall pay attention to these suggestions.

*I should like to come to the hon. members for Prieska and King William’s Town, and the hon. member for Walmer could also listen. Clause 17(2) states explicitly—

The whole intention with the word “persons” is to supply the farmer with poison so that he can spray, for a farmer is also a “person”. That was our whole intention. The hon. member must understand that during the last outbreak of locusts we spent R2-3/4 million. Surely it would be stupid of us if there was a farmer who said he would spray the locusts effectively himself if we would only provide him with poison, and we said that it was provided in the Act that he was not allowed to spray. The only reason for stating it thus is to be able to implement everything we have learnt in the past in the right way. However, I can also inform the hon. member that after having made poison available on a previous occasion, we went to that same farm five years later and found that there was poison to the value of at least R500 or R600 still lying in the shed.

But that is poor control.

The hon. member says it is poor control, but how is he going to control this from South-West Africa right down to the south-eastern coast? How is one going to get all the officials working on this within a short time? However, I have taken note of all these suggestions, particularly those of the hon. member for Prieska. We shall implement this. I want to inform that hon. member and the hon. member who says that there is far too much red tape in the public service that it is only the occasional farmer—I would say 1% of the farmers—who would telephone us to say that he has a small patch of locusts on his farm and that we should come and eradicate them for him, or bring him the poison. During the last outbreak of locusts I saw many of the farmers; they are still not the type of person who asks for every little thing. I came across a man who told me that he had eradicated a small patch of locusts on his farm with a branch. He has his own solution for solving minor problems on his farm. He did not come and ask us immediately to provide him with poison, etc.

Oh, they must now eradicate the locusts with branches.

No, the hon. member must not interpret this now as my having said that they should eradicate the locusts with branches. Some of them threw petrol over the locusts and set them alight, but I came across one farmer who asked the locust officer to come and eradicate a small patch the size of a kitchen, and that was 60 miles away from the locust officer. That is what I want to try and prevent. For that reason I say that many of the farmers, the greatest percentage of them, still have pride enough to say: This is my farm, I am master here and if there is a small outbreak of locusts here, I will most certainly eradicate them myself. They are not of the begging breed who come and ask for everything. We must refer hon. members to …

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? In view of the fact that Double Benhex is now off the market for farmers, what must they kill locusts with if they have to do it themselves?

There are various substitutes. There is a substitute for Double Benhex and the reason why it was replaced is that D.D.T. preparations have been prohibited owing to health and anti-pollution considerations. The hon. member for South Coast asked us not to pollute everything with D.D.T. One cannot use aircraft to spray to one’s hearts content, so that it ends up in our rivers and streams, with the result that fish die and the vegetation is damaged. Surely that is the standpoint of every …

What well-known preparation will the farmer have on his farm to kill those locusts with? What ordinary preparation will he have if he has to kill them himself, as the hon. the Minister said?

The hon. member can purchase Bexadust from his co-operative, and any farmer knows that. Every farmer has a little Bexadust on his farm. If you have ticks on your farm, you use this, and it kills locusts as well. This is not a farmers’ association meeting where I have to give lectures on Bexadust and Double Benhex. I do not want to differ with the hon. member, but he is the one who spoke of red tape. I agree that some of these things must be controlled. It is the State’s money, and the taxpayer’s money. To spend R2 million without having any control over it is not so easy. It is not so easy to do these things; I have gone into many of the problems myself. Sometimes one can take short cuts, but I am not going to tell the entire 6 000 officials of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, to whom the hon. member referred, that they should learn to use a telephone. I myself will be able to tell a person such lies over the telephone that he does not know whether he is coming or going. These things must be controlled.

Lastly I just want to tell the hon. member for Walmer that I myself was accustomed to using the word “hopper” instead of “voetganger”. We will discuss this with the language experts and if “hopper” is the correct word, we shall substitute “hopper” for “voetganger”.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In order to exercise uniform control over all veterinary aspects, it has become imperative that the same legislation should apply in both the Republic and South-West Africa. This arrangement is also strongly supported by the Agricultural Union of South-West Africa.

The other aspect dealt with in the Bill relates to the construction and maintenance of access or patrol roads on land on which veterinary fixtures, cordons or fences have been erected. According to the law advisers the principal Act authorizes the erection of the said fixtures, cordons or fences, and the construction and maintenance of access or patrol roads can only be read into it as an implication. Since large parts of the Republic’s borders have already been fenced in and it is essential that the fences be patrolled, the law advisers recommended that the necessary authorization for the construction and maintenance of such roads be requested as soon as it is practicable. Because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is not equipped to undertake the construction and maintenance of roads it will be done on an agency basis by the provincial administration or their contractors. The Provincial Administration of the Orange Free State is at present constructing such a patrol road for the Department of Agricultural Technical Services along the border between Lesotho and the Republic.

The principle contained in the amendment to clause 2 is of the same kind as that contained in the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, in terms of which the department has to construct access roads in order to construct and maintain soil conservation works. Since the veterinary fixtures, cordons or fences are also of great benefit to the land-owner concerned, we have proceeded from the same standpoint as in the case of the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, namely that the State will not pay any compensation for the taking away of materials, etc., or for any land that may be occupied by a road. In cases where material is removed from other properties which are not affected by the road, compensation will be payable as arranged with the owner concerned.

This amendment also has the support of the South African Agricultural Union and the provincial administrations concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity that the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to introduce legislation and we on this side of the House want to congratulate him on his appointment as Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister has one of those constituencies in the country which any other constituency must surely find it difficult to surpass when it comes to the various agricultural sectors. In addition to certain tropical and sub-tropical fruits, and maize, for example, the hon. the Deputy Minister’s constituency covers almost every known branch of farming. As far as experience in his own constituency is concerned, I think that this can certainly enable the hon. gentleman to be well informed on the circumstances and problems of so many different branches of agriculture. We want to express the hope that the experience he has gained in his constituency will stand him in good stead in his work as Deputy Minister. Therefore it is fitting, too, that the hon. gentleman should introduce legislation here today concerning which there is no difference of opinion between us and that side of the House. This legislation will also be applied in South-West Africa. In clause 2 the hon. the Deputy Minister also states very clearly when cordons are to be established or roads are to be constructed. Just as was the case under the relevant section of the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, it remains a source of anxiety to us that the State does pay compensation when earth and materials are taken from one man to be used on another man’s farm, but does not pay compensation when the same materials are used on the land of the farmer concerned. We want to point out to the hon. the Minister that when these roads of fences are constructed, it is not only to the advantage of the farmer on whose land it is done, but also to the advantage of the other farmers around him. Therefore it seems to us to be a little unfair that when materials are taken from another farmer’s land, that farmer is compensated but when it is taken from his own land he gets absolutely no compensation for it. There are circumstances that make this understandable. When such a fence is erected, the farmer concerned does enjoy the advantage of it, but how can one always say, in the case of a road, that it will only be to the advantage of the farmer concerned? It is quite possible, from what I know of the farms in the large open areas, that it may be a road which the farmer uses very seldom. In the case where the necessary materials are removed from another man’s land, compensation is in fact available, but where the farmer himself is affected, it is not available. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister should not give attention to this point, because it may cause inconvenience, particularly in the case where a lot of material has to be taken and where a lot of earth has to be taken. As is often the case when the provincial council, the divisional council or another local authority wants to make a gravel-pit or construct a road or something of that nature, the farmer may not mind. Here, however it is a case where it may be to the general advantage. These fences that are erected to protect us against the outbreak of animal diseases do not benefit that particular farmer alone. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister should keep this argument in mind. We support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, with further reference to the remarks made by the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to clause 2 I just want to point out that the comparison between the Soil Conservation Act and the wording in this particular clause is not a fair one, for the simple reason that in the case of the Soil Conservation Act the implementation of the Act is mostly to the advantage of the producer, when roads, etc., are constructed on his property, while it may be something quite different here. Here it is not only a case of the establishment of cordons between our State and another State. Mention is made here of quarantine camps, for example, which may be erected on an individual farmer’s farm, and not even on his boundary, but in the middle of his farm. This is done if there is a sudden outbreak of foot and mouth disease or another contagious disease. In that case the Division of Veterinary Services will not hesitate to erect a quarantine camp on a producer’s farm at once. Not only does such a producer now have the inconvenience of having it there, but it is of absolutely no advantage to him either. It may be advantageous to him at a later stage when, for example, the department tells him that it does not want to remove the camp and that he may keep the fencing for himself. However, no farmer is assured of this. Now there is a qualification here, however, that the owner of the farm has to provide the materials if he can provide them, and not only the earth, the stones, etc., but even the posts, the wood that is involved in building such a camp. So if a producer has wood on his farm, such as wild olive wood, this must also be taken from him to erect those camps. If it comes from his neighbour, he will be paid for it. If it should come from the owner, who has to suffer the inconvenience without any advantages because it is a contagious disease that has broken out there, he has to pay the penalty and suffer the inconvenience involved. They construct roads on his farm, as well as fences, for which he has to provide the materials free of charge. All he gets out of it is the inconvenience. I wonder whether another plan should not be devised in this respect. The Soil Conservation Act provides for this, and I have already indicated the difference. The Electricity Supply Commission pays owners when large lines are put up, even for the right to cross over their land. They construct roads where they have no option and maintain those roads even when they run alongside a line. However, the owner is paid and he signs a contract in this regard because they cross his road. It is better to take this as an example rather than the Soil Conservation Act. Because these provisions relate to the Soil Conservation Act we want to suggest that the same be done in this legislation in so far as the Division of Veterinary Services has the right to erect camps, cordons or anything else on a farmer’s farm.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a measure this afternoon which, amongst other things, applies the Animal Diseases and Parasites Act of the Republic to the territory of South-West Africa, including the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel. I listened to the introduction by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I want to add my personal congratulations to those of the hon. member for Newton Park to this hon. Deputy Minister on the first Bill he is handling in this House. I want to put him at ease right away and say that we are not going to oppose this Bill. I am going to give him a free passage this afternoon, too, but he must not expect that every time he gets up to introduce legislation. I say that, because it is the function of the Opposition to investigate, probe and question all the legislation which is introduced by the Government. I am sure I do not have to remind hon. members on that side of the House that that is exactly the function we carry out from this side.

With these opening remarks, I want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister in his introduction did not really tell us why he was now applying this measure to South-West Africa. Are the regulations as they apply and the provisions of the Ordinances in South-West Africa inadequate? Can they not handle the situation? Have there been any special circumstances which require the application of this legislation to South-West Africa? Is there something of that sort of which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not advised this House? I submit that he should advise us and take us fully into his confidence. He should let us know what is happening. I particularly want to ask if anything has happened in South-West Africa concerning the poultry industry. As you are aware, Sir, we have had in the last few years a scandal in the poultry industry within the Republic. A scandal in that the provisions of this very Act which we are now applying to South-West Africa, have not been applied. I wonder if this is not perhaps one of the reasons why this Act is now being applied to South-West Africa, that the hon. the Minister has perhaps discovered that there is also wholesale smuggling of poultry and eggs taking place in South-West Africa.

No, really, we do not come from Natal.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Mariental to try to pass snide remarks about not coming from Natal. I do not think that much smuggling is taking place in Natal, but I do not know what has taken place in South-West Africa. But if he wants to ask about what smuggling has taken place, the hon. the Minister, who unfortunately is not present, during November of last year advised me that he was appointing a commission of inquiry …

Order! Is that under discussion?

Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are applying an Act to South-West Africa, an Act which incorporates certain provisions prohibiting the introduction of livestock into the Republic of South Africa. The commission of inquiry to which I am referring has to investigate that very matter, whether livestock has been introduced or not. Sir, I am merely speculating as to whether this is not one of the reasons why this legislation is now applied to South-West Africa. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister advise us on the question? I would also like some indication from the hon. the Deputy Minister as to whether this commission, which is to be appointed—I believe it is yet to be appointed, because I do not believe it has as yet been appointed—will also investigate these questions in South-West Africa, in terms of the provisions of this very Act which we are now wanting to apply to South-West Africa. As I was saying, the hon. the Minister advised me on 22nd November that it had been decided to appoint a commission of inquiry; that a recommendation in that regard had been made to the State President, and that a formal notice would be published in the Government Gazette as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

Sir, this is a matter of importance not only to the Republic but now to South-West Africa as well. To my knowledge, this commission has not yet been appointed, although I know that the South African Poultry Association have in fact advised the Minister of their nominee on this commission. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us this afternoon whether this commission has been appointed …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

Mr. Speaker, I must abide by your ruling, but may I point out that this is of importance to South-West Africa; once this Act is applied to South-West Africa …

Order! The appointment of that commission is not under consideration now.

Sir, can I then leave aside the appointment of the commission and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he can advise us of the terms of reference of that commission and whether that commission is in fact going to inquire into the very things which are provided for in this Act and whether they will be investigated regarding South-West Africa as well.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Newton Park for his congratulations on my appointment. I appreciate it all the more because he comes from Swellendam himself. I also thank him for having done a good word for my constituency. I found it interesting to see that he had a slight objection to this arrangement in the legislation that the farmer whose land does not adjoin the cordon or fence directly will not be compensated. I would take it, particularly since today these works are situated in regions that are really sparsely populated and very extensive, that those who would want to construct those roads would certainly want to find the materials as close at hand as possible. This is just an additional arrangement where material has to be taken from persons whose land is not adjacent on the border. There is actually a great advantage in this arrangement for those who do adjoin the fence. In the first place they contribute nothing to the boundary fence of their farms, because these fences are erected and also maintained by the State, where otherwise they would have had to bear half the erection costs, as well as the maintenance costs. I think that to a large extent this compensates the farmer for the inconvenience he may be caused. I think that these access roads definitely contain an advantage and I think that this arrangement is really very reasonable. I want to concede that where there is such a protective fence the farmers further removed from the border will also derive advantage from it. I want to concede that, but I nevertheless feel that the arrangement for which provision is made here and which has been accepted by the Agricultural Union should remain unchanged.

The hon. member for East London City spoke of quarantine camps being erected all of a sudden. I want to concede that it may certainly cause inconvenience to the farmer to whom the land belongs, but I want to put it to the hon. member that when an outbreak takes place it is in the interests of everyone that the spreading of the disease be guarded against as quickly as possible. What the hon. member said is quite true; I, too, feel that it is a reasonable amount of compensation; that when a fixture such as a quarantine camp has been erected, this quarantine camp cannot be promised to the farmer, but that it is quite often more expensive to go and remove it than to charge a nominal amount for it. So I feel that there are, after all, certain advantages for the farmer in this arrangement. In most cases this advantage would in the end go to the farmer. [Interjections.] Well, it can usually be calculated what would involve the greatest cost, and in practice the advantage does go to the farmers, after all.

As regards the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, I must honestly say that initially I did not quite know what he was talking about, and I want to agree with Mr. Speaker that the matter which he raised is not relevant here. However, I am very grateful that he did not bowl me over and I would believe that we shall still encounter each other in future and that even then he will not treat me too harshly.

The question was asked why this measure has to be applicable in South-West Africa where it concerns boundary lines. Hon. members who have knowledge of this will know that it is not so easy to maintain boundary fences. The greatest part of the Republic’s borders are fenced in, and so are those of South-West Africa.

It is essential that those access roads be there so that proper inspections can be carried out. This is the case in South-West Africa as well, and for that reason it was requested by the Agricultural Union of South-West Africa, and therefore I think it is quite reasonable to make this legislation applicable there as well in order to give the people there the necessary protection.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has been decided at the instance of the Agricultural Union of South-West Africa to make the Livestock Brands Act, 1962, applicable in South-West Africa. The request made by the Agricultural Union was in substance based on the fact that the Stock Brands Ordinance, 1931, was outmoded in many respects and needed to be overhauled completely.

Initially the problem was that South-West Africa had a compulsory system of livestock brands, whereas the system in the Republic was founded on a voluntary basis. Along with this problem there was also the request by the South African Police for the provisions of the Livestock Brands Act, 1962, to be amended so as to make the branding of livestock compulsory in the Republic. Such an amendment to the Act will infinitely facilitate the task of the Police in tracking down stolen livestock.

After detailed discussions with the South African Agricultural Union a settlement was reached in so far that the territory of South-West Africa would retain its present system of compulsory livestock brands and that a separate register for the territory, with an assistant registrar of brands in Windhoek, would remain in existence.

Furthermore, as far as the Republic is concerned, it has been agreed that, after consultation with the South African Agricultural Union and the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, certain areas will, whenever necessary, be declared as areas in which the branding of livestock will be made compulsory. I foresee that this measure is not going to be applied very often, but only in those areas in which the Police are experiencing special problems in connection with stock theft. The branding of livestock and legislation in this regard was introduced primarily for the purpose of enabling the stock farmer to brand his property in a proper manner and so to facilitate identification. If farmers who are continually troubled with stock theft should avail themselves of this method of identification, the proclamation of areas as envisaged in clause 4 would not be necessary. Unfortunately we still have farmers who, in such circumstances, do not brand their livestock, but nevertheless expect the Police to track down stolen livestock quickly and effectively.

Apart from the foregoing, this Bill contains no new principles.

We have no objection to this Bill being passed if the police can in any way be assisted in tracking down stolen livestock. There is no need for me to say in this House that there are many farmers who have tremendous problems in this regard, and this is especially so in a vast territory such as South-West Africa. Therefore it is by no means our intention to place any obstacles in the way and so to prevent this being done. The hon. gentleman has explained to us that the register which has been in force in that territory since 1912 will be extended even further, and that every farmer who has a brand will have it registered. Therefore we on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill being passed.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill, which I am placing before the hon. House today, contains no changes in principle, but is only intended to correct a few administrative matters that have been encountered since the commencement of the principal Act.

The amendment in clause 1 is regarded as being necessary for regulation in the extreme cases where it is necessary to issue a direction to the effect that certain land must be permanently withdrawn from cultivation. Here one has in mind farm lands that have already been eroded to such an extent that virtually all the topsoil has been washed away. This category usually consists of farm lands that should never have been cultivated in the first place because of their topography or the quality of the soil. I should like to add here that the cooperation, which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has had from farmers in that connection, is particularly encouraging, though there are always the extreme cases where drastic action is unfortunately essential.

Thus it was envisaged, with the drafting of the principal Act in 1969, to issue directions, for the erection of all soil conservation works, according to which a subsidy or grant would be paid out or made. This has been seen to be impractical because the Department of Agricultural Technical Services did not have the necessary staff, and consequently subsidies and grants have continued to be paid or made after the farm plan was approved. The proposed amendment in clause 2 rectifies the position so that payments for approved soil conservation works may continue to be made in accordance with the objectives of the Act.

The proposed new section 26A is being requested on the advice of the legal advisers as a result of problems that have been encountered in court cases where the onus is placed on the department to prove that the Soil Conservation Act, 1969, is applicable to the land concerned.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is glad that the envisaged amendment, as contained in clause 1, has been moved, an amendment by means of which the Department of Agricultural Technical Services’ soil protection division is now being placed in a position to permanently withhold an area from cultivation. There are numerous examples in this country of areas where there should never have been any form of cultivation whatsoever in the past. Examples of this are available to us all in many parts of the those areas, by permanently withdrawing them from cultivation, the purposes of the Soil Conservation Act will most certainly be promoted. Therefore we on this side of the House can have no objection to that.

Clause 2 is also welcomed by this side of the House. I come then to clause 3. We all know that this legislation must have teeth, as it is so frequently put, if it is to be implemented efficiently. There are probably many farmers, and not only farmers but also landowners, who try to get round the Soil Conservation Act. I wonder, however, if it is altogether the correct principle to now place the onus of proof on the farmer himself to say whether the Soil Conservation Act should be applied to that land. I wonder whether we shall not encounter more problems in future, while the object should actually be to obtain the co-operation of all farmers. I think that from the point of view of a sound legal principle the onus of proof ought to be on the State to prove the guilt of the other party and not vice versa. In this case I believe that if in future the hon. the Minister experiences greater problems with the implementation of this new section 3, as introduced by this Bill into the principal Act, he should rather come back to this House and amend it. If he places the onus of proof on the farmer instead of having kept it with the State, as it ought to be, I do not think he will obtain the necessary co-operation. I think it is probably the wish of everyone in this House that we have the co-operation of the farmers and the landowners, because the Soil Conservation Act cannot be implemented without our having the co-operation of those people. I am only afraid that clause 3 is not going to give the hon. the Minister the measure of success he expects to achieve, because the farmer is now going to be under the impression that there is a kind of persecution complex on the part of the State. One does not want that under any circumstances either. We on this side of the House are prepared to let the Second Reading go through, but we want to tell the hon. the Minister in advance that if this new section cannot be implemented efficiently, and he gets opposition from the farmers, he should rather come back to this House so that we can keep the position as it was previously.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Newton Park has said, we on this side of the House support this measure. It is a measure that is designed to improve our Soil Conservation Act and therefore it places us in a better position to control soil erosion which is surely the objective of both sides of this House.

There are one or two matters I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The one is in the new section 3(1)(a) and inserted by clause 1A. It refers to the fact that land can now be permanently withdrawn from cultivation where it is deemed necessary. The other is in clause 2 which substitutes section 6 of the principal Act and provides that moneys can be paid by the State to assist in any way the achievement of any object set out in the Soil Conservation Act. I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he envisages that when certain land—I am talking here of pastoral land—has become so badly denuded and so badly eroded that it is desirable to take that land out of use and it is pointed out by a farmer to an extension officer that it would be in the best interests of the land if it were taken out of use, whether it would be possible in future for such a farmer to get State assistance if he should decide that it is desirable to take such action in the case of some of his land? I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree with me that there are very big areas in our pastoral areas where the only effective way of controlling soil erosion, is in fact to take them out of grazing, even for a period of up to 50 years.

Secondly, in connection with the problem he has in clause 3, the new section 26A, I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. There seems to be some difficulty in establishing whether certain land falls under the Soil Conservation Act. As the hon. the Minister will know, certain land such as commonages are exempt from the Soil Conservation Act. It seems to me a worrying fact that many thousands of morgen are in this way exempted from the operation of the Soil Conservation Act. Has the time not arrived when the department should give consideration to making all land, all common land, subject to the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act? I think that, if that were done, the need for this particular clause, which is not a good clause in law because it is based on a presumption, would not be necessary. We on this side of the House see the need for this clause, but do not like the implications of the legal aspects of it. If the commonages of South Africa, that is the municipal commonages, the divisional council commonages and other common lands, were subjected to the Soil Conservation Act, I wonder if the problem that arises and brings about this amendment might not fall away.

Mr. Speaker, we should very much like to hear more from the hon. the Deputy Minister about the definition in clause 1(a) which reads as follows—

The hon. member for Walmer has already spoken about this point. However, I picture to myself a situation the hon. the Deputy Minister may very likely know about, i.e. the Vlakpoort area where the land was partly cultivated, but later taken over permanently by the State in order to rehabilitate it. I suspect—and I should like to hear the hon. the Deputy Minister’s opinion—that this relates to the same thing, that it was not just the small piece of land that was exposed to cultivation, but an area which was further eroded as a result of the cultivation of that land so that when permanent withdrawal comes about it will include the area that was damaged by the cultivation as such. I should like to know the hon. the Deputy Minister’s interpretation of that. As far as that is concerned, I want to ask him whether the idea is, under the present livestock withdrawal scheme, where there are areas that are being withdrawn for five years, that those areas, under soil conservation, would not be permanently withdrawn if they have not recovered sufficiently and the scheme as such has not been successful. The stabilization of those parts cannot take place unless they are eventually permanently withdrawn. As far as clause 3 is concerned, I want to link up with what other hon. members on this side of the House have said about the placing of the onus on a person—and all persons as such—to prove that he is not subject to the provisions of the Soil Conservation Act. The onus is being placed upon him to prove, each time he is caught by a soil conservationist, either that a portion of his land falls inside or outside the soil conservation area, or that the land is not situated within a soil conservation area at all. I think it would be worth the trouble for the hon. the Deputy Minister to take another look at whether the burden, which should not rather be placed on the State. The State must prove that the person is guilty, and not the farmer that he is not guilty.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take the question raised first by the hon. member for Walmer and now also by the hon. member for East London City a little bit further. I am referring to the question of the presumption which is raised in terms of clause 3, i.e. the new section 26A which is to be inserted into the Act. As has been said by my hon. friend from Walmer, this is bad in law. It has always been a principle of our common law that the onus is on the State to prove guilt; it is not on the accused person to prove that he is innocent. Both the hon. gentlemen who have preceded me, referred to section 26 of the Act, in which it is laid down that the Act shall apply to all land except that which is situated in an urban area or is a Bantu area in terms of the Bantu Trust and Land Act or to which the provisions of the Rural Coloured Areas Act applies. It goes a little bit further than that, because in addition to the general application of the Act, we have a provision in section 3 of the Act today that the Minister may declare directions applicable with reference to certain pieces of land. I think this is where the hon. the Deputy Minister’s department has run into trouble. I was disappointed with the introduction by the hon. the Deputy Minister, because he did not really motivate this particular clause. He really gave us no reason why it was necessary now to place the onus on the individual farmer to prove that such a direction does not apply to his land. If we look at section 3 of the Act, we find that the Minister may, either by notice in the Gazette or by written notice to the owner or occupier of the land referred to in such notice, make certain provisions apply to that land. I do not think it is necessary for the purpose of this debate to go into what all those provisions are, but they do cover such things as the cultivation of land, the withdrawal from grazing, the control of water sponges, etc. These are very important provisions and we concede that the Minister should have the power to apply these directions to those particular areas in his wisdom in the interest of soil conservation throughout the Republic. But surely in the event of a prosecution it would be a simple matter for the State to prove that the Minister either has published a notice in the Gazette, or by written notice to the owner or occupier has made such a direction. It would be a simple matter for the State, because, surely, it keeps records. But just imagine the difficulty a farmer is going to find himself in, being faced with a prosecution in terms of a notice which was published in the Government Gazette. I want to ask you, Sir, and the hon. the Deputy Minister, how many farmers in this country receive the Government Gazette? How will the accused know that he has in fact committed an offence or not? Surely it is up to the State not merely to allege that the individual farmer has in fact committed an offence; it is also incumbent upon the State to prove that such a direction was in fact made applicable to that particular piece of land by the Minister. We are not opposing this measure. If it is in the interest of soil conservation in this country, if it is in the best interest of the agricultural economy that this provision should be allowed, we are prepared to concede it, but I do submit that the hon. the Deputy Minister must now tell us why he needs this power. Are there cases where the State is unable to prove that such a direction was in fact made applicable to a particular piece of land? If that is so, why is it impossible for the State to prove it?

Mr. Speaker, I think that this amendment, seen as a whole, is there to give the Minister greater powers with which to be able to properly implement the Soil Conservation Act of 1969. Section 3 of the principal Act is a section empowering the Minister to serve directions on a farmer of land that has been neglected. This amendment is being made for a very good reason. If we look at the history of soil conservation in South Africa and at the first Act in 1946, the old Act …

The United Party people’s Act.

Quite correct, the United Party Act. If one looks at that Act one sees that one of the biggest problems of that Act was to have it implemented and to give the department certain enforcing measures to combat malpractices which this amendment now wants to prevent. That Act was rewritten in 1969, and it now appears that this 1969 Act does not have sufficient powers either for the combating of these erosion problems. That is why we now want to give the Minister this additional authorization in clause 3 so that, in terms of this provision, he can have withdrawal of a more permanent nature take place, as hon. members have argued. But apparently hon. members are worried about clause 3. The fact that the onus now falls on the farmer simply means that the farmer will have to display more initiative when a direction is served on him and certain measures must be applied in the case of certain malpractices. He must then prove that it is not the case. In other words, it places much less trouble on the shoulders of the department when it comes to proving that there are, in fact, malpractices on the farm. In other words, administratively the implementation of this measure is going to mean much lower costs and fewer problems for the department. With the United Party Act of 1946 the erstwhile Soil Conservation Committees, which consisted of farmers, had to act. One of the problems was that farmers never wanted to take action against fellow farmers. Consequently that Act could never be properly implemented. This Act was rewritten. It now appears that the powers contained in it were insufficient to counteract this problem. Consequently there is also the amendment in clause 3 to give greater powers to the State.

Mr. Speaker, clause 1 makes provision for the deletion of the word “temporary”. I thought the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District would help me out there, because he is a legal man and someone with a knowledge of court procedure. This word “temporary” is interpreted in court as a short period of time. “Permanently” is regarded in court in the same light as a life-term of imprisonment; when a man gets a life-term it means about ten or 12 years in the long run. Our intention here is that when the land is “temporarily” withdrawn, it should be withdrawn for ten or 12 years, or for a relatively long period of time, so that it can recover completely. In the magistrate’s court, however, this word “temporary” is regarded as a period of about three months. In order to put this matter right, that change is being brought about. I think it is probably quite clear to hon. members.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the legal advisers foresee that we are possibly going to have problems with the Auditor-General, because here, in effect, it is not clear whether we are acting within the law by allowing persons to carry out the works themselves, according to the plan, and then paying subsidies to them. Now this position is just being corrected. While it was initially the intention, as it stands in the Act, that the State should do this, the farmer himself can now do it, and now authorization is just being granted for these payments to be made.

The third clause also has to do with problems. What is actually involved here is the onus of proof. The only difference there really is, is that, as it is stated very clearly here, the Act at present is not applicable to certain lands. Urban areas, Bantu Trust land and pastoral Coloured areas are excluded. It is actually a very difficult problem. We would very much have liked to make the Soil Conservation Act applicable to all these areas.

Hear, hear!

I am convinced that the Opposition will agree with us that where there is ruination of land in South Africa, it is absolutely essential to combat the phenomenon. But that is not so easy. In the first place it is not so easy to define this. Take Colesberg for example. There we could still make out a case; there we can provide that the commonage shall fall under the Soil Conservation Act, but what about this piece of commonage here in Cape Town next to the sea? We cannot draw up an Act that is comprehensive enough and that would also satisfy the legal advisors and the courts. It does not help to draft an Act if we cannot implement it. In that connection the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District could perhaps furnish a contribution; it would probably be the first time he has ever done anything of a positive nature in this House; perhaps he could help us in this connection.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill that is now before the House at the moment, embodies mainly one principle, viz. the application of the Stock Theft Act of 1959 of the Republic in the territory of South-West Africa.

As hon. member know, matters concerning the theft of stock or produce are among those listed in the South-West Africa Affairs Act, 1969, in respect of which the administration of the affairs of the territory is dealt with by a Minister of the Republic—in this case the Minister of Justice.

Penalties and other matters concerning the theft of stock and produce in the territory are still being regulated by an ordinance of 1935. Although the legislation of the Republic and that of the territory are in the main similar in this regard, there are nevertheless certain differences. The ordinance of the territory still prescribes imprisonment for a period of not more than 18 months in the case of a first conviction for an offence such as theft or attempted theft of stock or produce, while the Stock Theft Act of the Republic prescribes imprisonment of not more than two years in the case of a first conviction. The penalty of a fine for which the ordinance makes provision in the case of a first conviction, is one of not more than R400, while the Stock Theft Act prescribes a fine of not more than R1 000. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the ordinance prescribes imprisonment for a period of not more than 2½ years, while the Stock Theft Act prescribes imprisonment for a period of not more than three years.

The Stock Theft Act also contains regulations concerning the furnishing of a document of identification when stock is being sold; also provisions concerning the acquisition of stock or produce from certain non-Whites or persons whose places of residence are unknown, as well as provisions concerning the possession of a removal certificate when stock or produce is being driven, conveyed or transported on or along public roads. Similar provisions are not found in the ordinance of the territory.

As the administration of justice is also one of the listed matters in respect of which the administration of the affairs of the territory is dealt with the Minister of Justice and as it is desirable that one should aim at uniformity, especially in so far as the Stock Theft Act is connected with the administration of justice, that Act is being made applicable in the territory by this Bill.

There has been consultation with inter alia the South-West African Agricultural Union. That union indicated that it supported the application of the Stock Theft Act in the territory.

Mr. Speaker, as this Bill more or less deals with agriculture and as our agriculture group on this side of the House usually tells the justice group what to do regarding agricultural matters, we welcome this Bill. We welcome the fact that the Stock Theft Act will be made applicable to South-West Africa. We are doing this for the simple reason that we regard our own Stock Theft Act in South Africa as being much more effective, and I do not say this with any lack of respect for the Ordinances that have been applicable there up to now. But I think that our own Stock Theft Act can be implemented far more effectively in that territory and may, without a doubt, also have more success in preventing stock theft. Therefore we welcome this legislation, and I think we are also speaking on behalf of the farmers of that territory when we tell the hon. the Minister that this legislation is being welcomed by all of them in that territory.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before the House makes provision for the establishment of a Law Commission which will replace the Law Revision Committee. The law should keep pace with developments in every sphere of society, which same developments sometimes take place at a rapid pace. To ensure compliance with this requirement it is essential to see to it that effective machinery exists to make the necessary adjustments in the law. The law is fundamental to our existence and is a matter to which changes should only be effected after mature deliberation and full-scale consultation. In addition there is so much difference of opinion on and so many facets of certain legal matters that a standing commission is best able to deal with this.

Representatives of all branches of the legal profession are consequently unanimous in their opinion that an effective law reforming body ought to be established. The necessity for the existence of such a body has been emphasized throughout the world by the fact that at least 27 new law reforming bodies have been established during the past five years in those countries alone where the English law forms the basis of their legal systems.

The existing Law Revision Committee was established in 1950. I can assure you, Sir, that dedicated jurists have, throughout, served and are still serving on the Committee. However, the members are professional people who are in full-time professional practice, and consequently the Committee has for purposes of research had to rely exclusively on individuals who, when the opportunity presented itself, were able to devote a little time to this task. In practice, this does not work well. The members simply do not have the time to give their uninterrupted attention to a matter, and the progress made is too slow. Under the circumstances it appears to be necessary to establish a body by legislation, a body which has the necessary powers to approach its task in a purposeful and planned manner, and in particular on a continuous basis.

Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill make provision, respectively, for the necessary definitions and the establishment of a South African Law Commission. There was considerable deliberation on the name, and this name was decided on after the names which have been given to such bodies in numerous countries were also given thorough consideration.

Provision is being made in clause 4 for the appointment of not more than seven members of the Commission. Additional members may be appointed, if this should be necessary for the consideration of any particular project. A small number of members appears to be adequate provided a dynamic Secretariat is established which can prepare study documents and Bills, obtain and analyse comment on suggestions and submit the necessary documentation to the Commission. I am convinced, Sir, that if a properly elaborated memorandum is submitted to a small representative group of jurists of high standing, they will be able to decide, without themselves spending much time on it, whether a suggestion should be supported.

The objects of the proposed Commission are contained in clause 4. As you will note, Sir, the objects are comprehensive. Research may be done into all branches of the law and recommendations may be made for the development, improvement, modernization and reform thereof.

Naturally, the Commission will have to proceed with its tasks in order of importance. In clause 5 provision is therefore being made for the drawing up of programmes. The programmes will have to be approved by the Minister of Justice, so that the order of preference in which suggestions are dealt with will not conflict with planning which is possibly being done by the Government in any particular field. Any person will be able to submit suggestions, so that it will be possible for the services of the Commission to be utilized, inter alia, by all legislative bodies. Not only will it be possible for assistance to be rendered to all Government departments, provincial administrations and so on, but due allowance should also be made for the emerging Black states within our own borders. The Republic, as the most developed country in Southern Africa which adheres to Roman-Dutch Law, certainly has a duty, in the field of law as well, to provide assistance and guidance to those who wish to make use of it. In this field as well I foresee, Sir, that the Commission and its Secretariat will be able to make a major contribution. Clause 5(4) of the Bill confers upon the Commission the powers which are conferred upon a commission appointed in terms of the Commissions Act, 1947. The most important of these is the power to summon witnesses. While these powers will enable the Law Commission to perform its duties properly, they will also enable it, on instructions from the Government, to institute investigations which would otherwise have had to be made by specially appointed commissions. Such commissions are appointed from time to time to inquire into some or other branch of the law, and to make recommendations for the improvement thereof. Such special commissions may still be appointed, but in future this will only be necessary when this proposed standing Law Commission cannot or ought not to undertake this task itself. The Botha Commission, which recently investigated our criminal procedure, recommended an investigation into the law of evidence for example. In this case the Law Commission will be able to do what is necessary. In addition there are already indications that a codification of the law of evidence is called for. This matter as well can be disposed of in full by the Law Commission, since codification of any branch of the law which lends itself thereto is also included in the objects of this Commission. The Commission is also at the disposal of other Ministers and departments.

In clause 6 of the Bill provision is made for the arrangement of meetings of the commission.

Reports of the Law Commission will, in accordance with clause 7, be submitted to the Minister of Justice, which Minister will then decide on any steps to be taken in this regard. Reports affecting the functions of other departments or bodies will naturally be submitted to them by the Minister. Provision is also being made for the tabling of annual reports in both Houses of Parliament so that you as well, Sir, and our highest legislative body will continually be kept informed on the progress which is being made.

Clause 8 provides that the Secretary and staff of the Commission shall be appointed in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957. In addition it is being envisaged to incorporate the Secretariat under the Department of Justice, with the result that office facilities, typing services and an excellent library will immediately be available. As public servants the staff will also have access to official documents, and the necessary liaison via the Secretary for Justice will in that way be assured.

In the initial stages it will apparently be necessary to establish only a small Secretariat with a few researchers. Although future development may necessitate an increase in staff, I do not foresee, Sir, this happening in the immediate future, particularly since provision is being made in clause 8(2) for the employment of experts in specific fields on a temporary basis, as well as for obtaining the co-operation of other bodies. In this way the Commission will, for example, also be able to make use of a body such as the Institute for Comparative Law and Foreign Law of the University of South Africa. The Treasury and the Public Service Commission are satisfied that it will be possible to do what is necessary in this connection.

In clause 9 provision is being made for the remuneration of members and for their expenses. After calculation of the costs, it appears that the price which will be paid for an effective law reform body will be relatively small. For the information of hon. members I could mention that my predecessor, as long ago as 1965, approved in principle the establishment of an institute for criminology and crime prevention. Criminology and crime prevention is one of the fields into which the Law Commission could venture and will be able to undertake proper research in order to adjust our law in this connection, and the necessity for the establishment of a separate body will therefore fall away.

The Republic recently became a member of the International institute for the Unification of Private Law. An expert body is necessary to ensure that the Republic plays a significant role in this field as well, and the Law Commission can supply this need as well. In addition South Africa is from time to time invited to send representatives to law congresses abroad. The knowledge acquired at such a congress can only be properly utilized if there is a body which is able to apply such knowledge in a positive manner. It is axiomatic that an effective law reforming body will also alleviate the task of the legislature considerably, and will save costs. If such a body, after proper consultation with interested parties, were to submit a well-motivated report together with a recommended measure, and the Minister in question were to table it in Parliament, I feel that this would facilitate the task of this House and would perhaps make it unnecessary to refer certain measures to a Select Committee.

In conclusion I just want to mention that the course we now envisage adopting with this Bill received its prime motivation from a deputy secretary of my department, namely Mr. J. P. J. Coetzer, who made an extensive and critical comparative law study of law reform in South Africa and prepared a comprehensive document in this connection. This document was forwarded to the Hon. Chief Justice, to judge presidents, to universities, the General Bar Council, the Association of Law Societies, and so on for comment, and I can say that the document and the ideas expressed therein met with general approval. By your leave, Sir, I therefore want to congratulate Mr. Coetzer on this occasion on the fruits of his labour.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add the support of the Opposition to the illustrious list that the hon. the Minister has read out, of people who support this Bill. We support the principle involved in this Bill for several reasons. Apart from members of this House who have a legal background, I do not suppose that many of the hon. members have ever heard of the Law Revision Committee. Certainly there was no right as a right for persons to submit to that body suggestions for the improvement or modernization of the law and that is the situation which we shall have with this body when set up. It will become a statutory body and one will have the right to submit suggestions to it. The Government, any other citizen and even this House will be able to do so. Perhaps most important of all is the fact that this body will report to the hon. the Minister on its year’s work. The hon. the Minister will then lay that report on the Table of both Houses. I think this is a great improvement on the existing situation. One of our difficulties and one of the difficulties faced by all modern countries today—not just our country—is that we are becoming more and more over governed. There is more and more pressure put on in central departments; more and more laws have to be made to deal with more and more of the complex situation that arise. These laws are usually made, in the nature of things, in a dark place, that is to say, in a place to which one does not have access; one does not know the motivations that prompted the making of those laws. We hope certainly, in so far as a lot of our legislation in future is concerned, that the situation will now be different and that we will have laws emanating from this body of eminent lawyers, which will be motivated; in other words, that every bit of draft legislation submitted by this commission will be accompanied by a White Paper in depth. That, I think, is a great improvement. One hopes that the reports which are made by the commission and are to be laid on the Tables of both Houses, will be comprehensive. One hopes, too, that if there is any disagreement between the hon. the Minister and the commission as to what the programme should be, i.e. the order in which consideration shall be given to certain matters, that that will also appear in the report. That, of course, is a matter for the commission to decide and not, obviously for the hon. the Minister. One hopes, Sir, that when legislation is drafted by this commission and the hon. the Minister introduces it to this House, we will have the benefit also of the report on that particular legislation which is submitted to the hon. the Minister, because the Bill does not provide that we should have it as a matter of course. One appreciates that this is a matter which will have to be decided from one case to the next. One appreciates also that this is something new and that is not possible at this stage to say exactly how one would like this commission to look. However, it is a great improvement and we support this Bill as it is. One was tempted, when looking at the Bill for the first time, to think that such bodies as the General Council of the Bar of South Africa and the Association of Law Societies, for example, should be entitled to nominate a panel of persons for appointment to this body which the hon. the Minister would have to appoint. But on the other hand if one has to say that about these two bodies, one would also have to say it about the Association of Law Teachers and all the various bodies that are involved with the law. But I hope that the hon. the Minister is in a position to give us his assurance that, when making appointments to this body, he will consult with the representatives of the General Council of the Bar and of the Association of Law Societies.

That then is our attitude. We welcome this Bill. We welcome this commission as a great improvement, as a body to which the public will have access and as a body which will, when it is necessary and in normal circumstances operate in the light of day. The Commissions Act is to apply, which means that in normal circumstances certainly the evidence that they will hear as well as submissions from the public would be open to the public, and therefore to the Press. One would thus be aware of what is happening. That is perhaps the most welcome thing of all, that there should be light shining in those places where the law is to be made. This will obviously be very useful to the public and also to Parliament. One hopes that that which emanates from this commission will not be regarded by hon. members as something which is a sort of gilt-edged incontrovertible statement of what the law should be, because when legislation comes from so august a body as this with a judge as chairman and a judge as vice-chairman ordinary mortals are inclined to accept it as gilt-edged and incontrovertible. But that is not so, of course. This is merely a body which recommends; Parliament itself remains the law-maker and Parliament will undoubtedly be helped by the full disclosure and motivations of this commission. We hope that this commission will be set up as soon as possible and that it will work. We are not in a position now to suggest any alternative to that which is in the Bill. With a few years experience no doubt we will, if necessary, find ourselves able to agree again on any changes which experience might show to be necessary. We support the Bill at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction I should like, in a few very brief words, to pay tribute to my predecessor in this House who for many years represented the Vereeniging constituency here. He was a colourful figure, and I think that all the hon. members present here certainly miss him. This was affirmed in the Lobby, and to repeat it here is probably the greatest compliment I could pay him.

The introduction of this Bill brings to an end, in a sense, a phase in our history of law reform, but at the same time it begins a new phase. Up to now law reform and law revision has been dealt with by a body which was known as the Law Revision Committee. I should like to associate myself with the tribute paid here by the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North to the work of this committee. The Law Revision Committee was established by our esteemed former State President, Mr. C. R. Swart, in his capacity at that time as Minister of Justice. In the relatively short period of its existence this committee made an appreciable contribution to law reform and the improvement of our law. In this way, for example, important legislation was passed by Parliament on the recommendation of the Law Revision Committee, legislation which had a far-reaching effect on the administration of justice in this country. I could mention to you in this regard, Mr. Speaker, the Apportionment of Damages Act, the Prescription Act, and the Suretyship Act and the attendant abolition of the well-known senatusconsultum velleianum and the authentica si qua mulier but the influence of the Law Revision Committee on our law was not lacking in the field of jurisprudence either. For example this committee played a leading role in the translation of our authoritative legal sources from our common law. For these contributions the Law Revision Committee deserves our praise and appreciation.

In the second place I want to associate myself with the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Durban North in respect of the desirability of and the necessity for this Bill. Our law, I believe, is one of the most precious possessions which we have in the Republic of South Africa. It has grown, even over thousands of years, and has been refined by the hard work and the findings of a long list of venerable and competent judges. It has been expanded by the influence of excellent jurists, and has been supplemented by responsible legislation of this Parliament. As a result of all these processes we today have a legal system of which we may be proud, a legal system which is worthy of being preserved as something precious. That is what this Bill envisages. By appointing a standing Commission it is being ensured that our law will undergo a constant process of refinement. The constitution of the Commission, in its compactness, and also with its co-optive rights, ensures that work of a high standard will be produced. The establishment of a permanent Secretariat ensures that an attempt will also be made, on the administrative level, to cause the Commission to function effectively.

But, Sir, the essence of this Bill is, in my opinion, contained in clause 4, the objects clause, in which the functions of the Commission are briefly summarized. If I may sum it up, more concisely than it is at present, then I would say that the functions of this Commission will be to investigate and make recommendations in respect of the development, the improvement, the modernization and the reform of our law. Apart from the good reasons which have already been competently mentioned by previous speakers for it being a good thing that there will be a Commission which does precisely this, I should also like to add three reasons which I think make it essential that such a Commission be established, and these are briefly, in the first place, the possibility that errors and discrepancies may creep into our legislation, which have then to be eliminated; secondly, that such a Commission will serve the interests of the community, of every man woman and child; and, thirdly, that the functions of such a commission could also meet with a response beyond our own borders.

With regard to the necessity for a body which guards against errors and discrepancies in our law, it is necessary that we take cognizance of the fact that we have a growing body of law, that, apart from the regular court decisions which gradually become part of the law as well, we are constantly passing new Bills here, and new ordinances are constantly being passed by the provinces. I checked up on this, Sir, and if I added them up correctly, Parliament alone has since 1910 placed 3 557 Acts on the Statute Book, of which 2 445 are still on the Statute Book. If one adds to this all the ordinances of the provinces one gets an impression of the tremendous magnitude of just our statute law alone. For that reason it is no wonder that this Bill has as its objects inter alia, the repeal of obsolete provisions and the removal of anomalies, and codification. The law is continually growing and developing, and it will be a good thing if there is a Commission which keeps a watchful eye open, particularly in order to eliminate the discrepancies which may so easily arise.

In the second place I mentioned that such a Commission would be in the interest of the community. In this regard I want to emphasize that the law is not an end unto itself, that the law does not exist in a vacuum, but that the law is directed at a community. In that community it is the object of a legal system to maintain peace and order. It regulates inter-personal relations, and also relations between the State and its subjects. A good legal system then ensures such an orderly community, the members of which can live in security because they have legal security. But a good legal system also ensures that there is a balance between the protection of the individual and his rights on the one hand and the interests of the community in its overall framework on the other. The law is therefore not only something which is of interest to attorneys, advocates and professors. No, the law is of the greatest interest to every man, woman and child, for it has, directly or indirectly, an influence on every facet of life. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, it is important that the law should constantly be improved in order, in the words of the Bill, to make the common law more readily available. In this connection it is also important, as the hon. member for Durban North emphasized, that the Bill virtually contains an invitation to the community to participate as well in law reform or law revision by submitting suggestions in regard to it to the Commission. I therefore contend, Sir, that this Bill is also of the utmost importance to the community whose welfare is inseparably bound up with the development of model legal system.

In the third place, Sir, I mentioned the contribution which such a Commission could make beyond our own borders. The hon. the Minister referred to the important role which the Commission could play within our own borders with regard to emerging states, and I want to add with great respect here that we could also be of particular service to the legal systems of those countries where Roman-Dutch Law still applies, such as Rhodesia and others, and also to the serious study which is still being made in many other countries of Roman-Dutch Law, such as England and the Netherlands. But the service which this Commission could render and which could have an influence beyond our own borders, goes further than simply assistance to other countries with regard to their legal systems. We in South Africa are frequently accused of inhuman suppression of the freedom of the individual, in the juristic sphere as well, and against the background of this accusation I maintain that the introduction of this Bill constitutes an answer to these critics, for by placing this Bill on the Statute Book, this House will prove that the law is important to us; that we want to improve our law even further, which is already one of the foundation stones of our stability and our level of civilization. Any person who appears before a court of law in South Africa may already be assured today of a hearing in terms of a fair and developed legal system, and now we want to expand it even further and make it more readily available. We have a legal system, Mr. Speaker, which has a proud record of compliance with the highest objects of the law, namely to ensure that justice is done and that order is maintained at the same time; and for that reason this Bill says to those who accused us of injustice that precisely the converse is true, that we are in earnest about our law and therefore our justice as well. I am convinced, Sir, that the establishment of the South African Law Commission will be universally welcomed and that it will play a major role in the legal history of the future. For that reason I want to thank the Minister for the introduction of the Bill, and express the conviction that the Republic and its people will only benefit from it.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very great privilege indeed for me to congratulate the hon. member for Vereeniging on what I think everyone in this House will agree was a very impressive speech indeed.

Hear, hear!

I really was most impressed with what he had to say. He had a great many ideas. I liked his thinking, which was obviously profound, and I I would like to tell him that although many of us have done battle in previous days with his father in the days when he was a member of the Cabinet, I am sure the hon. member, judging by his performance here this afternoon, will exhibit the same courtesy and intelligence and staying power as his father. Although we are bound to cross swords over certain matters in this House, we do wish him, on behalf of the Opposition, the best of luck, and may he make a constructive contribution, as it appears he will do, to the work of this House. We wish him luck in any event.

Sir, the hon. member for Durban North, when he replied to the hon. the Minister’s introduction this afternoon, said that he doubted whether many people in South Africa were aware of the existence of the Law Revision Committee. He is probably quite right, but if there is one bunch of people who are very well aware of the existence of the Law Revision Committee and its inadequacies, for all the competence of the people who serve on it, it is the women’s organizations in this country. I must say, Sir, that however competent these good people may have been in the past, they have really not been able to deal with all the matters that they would no doubt like to have dealt with if they had had the time and the opportunity. I really welcome this Bill very much indeed because I feel that perhaps at last we are going to get the chance we have never had before. It has been my task to lead deputation after deputation to the hon. the Prime Minister when he was Minister of Justice and to this hon. Minister, as he knows very well, begging him to refer a lot of the anomalies existing in legislation with regard to the legal status of women to the Law Revision Committee, and the hon. the Minister has always said, “Provided they are not overworked and it is reasonable, I will refer this to the Law Revision Committee”. He did this over consultum velleianum with great success, so now perhaps we can have other matters referred to this commission as well.

I would like to refer to clause 4, which states the objects of the commission, firstly the repeal of obsolete or unnecessary provisions; secondly, the removal of anomalies, and thirdly, the bringing about of uniformity in the law in force in various parts of the Republic. I am quite aware that my hon. friends, the hon. member for Durban North and the hon. member for Vereeniging, are much better qualified to deal with the legal and academic aspects of this Bill, but I am nevertheless glad that the hon. member for Vereeniging gave some practical examples in the course of his speech, because there are certain things I would like to mention to the Minister and these are not all matters relevant to women. I think as typical examples of outdated legislation, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that there are at least two pre-Union Statutes still in force which the hon. the Minister might well refer to this commission from the start. Under present circumstances I need hardly bring to the Minister’s attention that this is extremely urgent. They both fall under the definition in clause 4(a) of being obsolete, and they are both unnecessary. The first is the Masters and Servants Act of 1856, and the other is the Lord’s Day Observance Act of 1895. I will deal with both of these briefly in a moment in another context. With regard to subclause (4)(b), which deals with the removal of anomalies, I wish to remind the Minister, or recommend to the Minister, certain other specific Statutes which he could well refer to the commission in its first programme of work.

Now, subclause (c) of clause 4 which refers to the bringing about of uniformity in the law in force in the various parts of the Republic raises certain queries in one’s mind, justifiably or otherwise. I do not pretend to be a legal expert, but I am just putting it to the hon. the Minister as an ordinary citizen. I do hope that the Government’s insatiable appetite for placing more and more powers in the hands of the central Government does not mean that the intention here is in any way to recommend that the existing jurisdiction which is exercised by junior bodies will be affected in any way. I think they have been emasculated enough as it is since 1948, and I would think that the commission’s object rather would be, as the hon. member for Vereeniging rightly said, to streamline procedure and to see that there is not overlapping from the different departments in the administrative field. I hope that that is the intention rather than any attempt to centralize control. I must say it seems to me-—I may be wrong here—that in achieving uniformity, as stated in this clause, in the field of law, the commission may well find, at some stage, that their work impinges upon the powers of the provinces. I think this undoubtedly will be the case, or that it will even impinge upon the work of local authorities. I hope the Minister will accept as axiomatic that one of the cardinal principles behind this commission’s activities will be to recommend draft legislation for a greater devolution of powers rather than for greater centralization, where they find it necessary to present draft legislation to the hon. the Minister in their reports. I would be glad if we could have some sort of assurance from the hon. the Minister on that point.

Now, I was pleased that the hon. member for Vereeniging made the point very clearly that the appointment of this commission would involve active participation by the public in the making of laws. I think this is a vital point. I was very pleased indeed that he made it. Clause 5 clearly makes provision for that, because it provides that the commission can consult any person or body. This presumably means any body of laymen as well as a legal body. This can only be welcomed by all members of the public who may find themselves interested in any aspects of our law which affect them adversely one way or another.

Just a word about the Masters and Servants Act. I do not have to tell the hon. the Minister how relevant this is to the crisis we have just been through during the last week or two. This Act was passed in 1856. It is absolutely feudal in concept and is a total anachronism on our Statute Book today. It was passed by the United Kingdom Government and made applicable in South Africa. The very title, it seems to me, is offensive today for the clear and only interpretation of the phrase “masters and servants” is that the masters are White and the servants are not. I would think, judging by the Government’s own reactions to these things, that this is a concept from which they would like to dissociate themselves as well. I think I am correct in saying that this Act is both obsolete and anomalous, although a very important issue at this time. If I recommend to the hon. the Minister that he does something about it, I hope he would agree. I asked the hon. the Minister of Labour last year whether he was thinking of amending or repealing pre-Union legislation in this field and if not, why not. The hon. the Minister replied that the Industrial Conciliation and Wage Acts have rendered the Masters and Servants Act of only limited application He admitted as much, but then he replied further, and I quote from col. 751, Questions and Replies, 1972—

I do not really believe that that Act can be reconciled with circumstances as they are today. The hon. the Minister must be aware—I shall not deal with this much longer—that the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956 specifically excludes a whole group of workers and not only domestic servants and agricultural labourers. The hon. the Minister may also know that the Coloured Representative Council in 1970 and 1971 passed unanimous resolutions asking that this Act should be repealed and that some kind of legislation be drafted to replace it. They left it to the Government to decide on such legislation, but they specifically requested the Minister—I have the minutes of their meetings available—to do something about repealing this statute which is really totally out of date. There are no protections for the worker of any kind, no wage determinations, no prescribed working hours, no sick pay, no benefits, no paid holidays, no medical aid, no nothing.

Order! Yes, but is the hon. member not going too far?

Yes, all right, Sir, I agree.

I am glad the hon. member agrees. I hope the hon. member will come back to the Bill now.

Mr. Speaker, my only point here in recommending this to the hon. the Minister is that in the Police report for last year it is stated that just under 22 000 people were convicted under that Act. I think it is completely anomalous.

The next point I want to raise is the repeal of the Lord’s Day Observance Act. We do not have many prosecutions under this Act. It was passed in 1838 and originally it was only applicable to the Cape Province. It was signed by the Governor, Sir George Napier—so far back does it go. It was amended in 1888 and finally in 1895 and it then covered billiards and skittles and all sorts of strange things we no longer play. It is quite ridiculous and the 1895 amendment also forbids any sort of voluntary, non-paying performance of any kind or the showing of pictures or playing of music. It is quite ridiculous. Every now and then somebody is brought to court under this Act because some narrow minded person somewhere in the country thinks that he has grounds for prosecution. I just want to give the hon. the Minister an example of how crazy this particular Act is in its application.

Is the hon. member now going to deal with every statute she does not like?

No. The hon. the Minister may or may not be interested, but my husband is a very keen cricketer and belongs to a lot of local friendly teams.

Yes, but has that anything to do with the Bill?

Yes, Sir, it has. Last Sunday the Navy was officially told through the department that they could not play friendly cricket against a friendly side at a private club in terms of this Act. That is why I recommend that this be one of the things the hon. the Minister should deal with forthwith.

Finally, in terms of anomalies I only want to recommend to the hon. the Minister three obvious items with regard to womens’ legal disabilities. The first is the Matrimonial Affairs Act of 1953 which badly needs reviewing. The hon. the Minister knows that we have brought deputation after deputation to see him about this. The second one is in regard to the Law of Succession. We are not happy with many of those sections either. Thirdly, there are the Income Tax laws as they apply at the moment to married women. Really, I think that these are anomalous to say the least.

Are you entitled to say that?

I am perfectly entitled to state this case if I want to, because nobody else is going to state it. I would just like to tell the hon. the Minister that we set great store by this commission and I hope that he will refer to it some of the issues that I have suggested, in its first programme. I am quite sure that it will be more effective than the Law Revision Committee. I only want to tell him—it may cheer him up to know this—that all the womens’ organizations in this country will be delighted if he would do something to assist them over the issues which we have put before him year after year.

Womens’ lib!

No, I am not a Womens’ libber at all. I wish the hon. the Minister luck with this commission and I am quite sure that he will receive the greatest co-operation from us.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House appreciate the fact and the idea that this measure is also supported by the Opposition. I believe that everyone associated with the practice of law and the administration of justice will welcome a measure of this nature in this country of ours. I cannot reply to any great extent to the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, and who supports this measure, because the requests and representations she made are in fact representations which she will have to make in due course to this Law Commission which is going to be established.

Sure.

I therefore agree with you in thinking, Mr. Speaker, that she was in fact out of order in addressing them in this way to the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

If we consider the constitution of the proposed Law Commission we find one cardinal aspect associated with it striking, and that is that it is geared for the most part to the practice of law. I think that there is in fact a need in our legal system, I shall not call it a deficiency, to cause the emphasis in the practice of law and the administration of justice to fall on the practice itself instead of having it fall only on the theory. For that reason I believe that it will be the task of this Law Commission to concentrate on the reform of and research into our legal system. Since we accept that in South Africa, with our legal system, are dealing with one of our best assets, that is the intertwining and the adding together of the old and the new—the old Roman-Dutch legal system which is being added to the present-day statutory legal system—it is essential that we have a body of this nature at our disposal. There is also this aspect attached to it that we are living in a world in which the legal systems cannot be separated from one another; they form a common basis. In this way, for example, the development of administrative law in the world today is so closely bound up internationally, the one country with another, that one has to make provision and ensure that one’s own system, based as it is on Roman-Dutch Law, is integrated on an international basis with the systems of other countries.

I also want to support this measure because it will be of particular assistance to us in this sense that in this country we have extremely competent professional and academic men. They sometimes place us in a somewhat difficult situation in respect of professorial dicta, theses, etc., which are compiled. Consequently it will also to a large extent be the task of this Commission to process that portion of our legal practice, those dicta, and to try to incorporate or include them in our legal system. Mention was made by the hon. Member for Vereeniging of legislation which has already been adopted in this way and placed on the Statute Book. In this connection we think in particular of the legislation which we adopted last year or the year before last, namely the Apportionment of Damages Act. What I found striking in this connection was that when the hon. the Minister introduced this legislation in the House it consisted of only one, two or three lines. However, we ought to go back and establish and investigate scientifically how much work went into this; how much evidence had to be called for by the Select and other Committees to which this matter had been entrusted—including the Revision Committee. The process of calling for evidence literally extended over a period of many years. We ought also to note how it was scientifically put together until eventually it was summarized in these few sentences only. The legislation made this aspect of our laws, namely the Apportionment of Damages, the establishment of and the complications associated with this, of far-reaching and radical importance to us. For that reason it is a pleasure for me, together with the other members in the House, to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think that it has been a long time since we last saw in this House a Bill on which everyone has bestowed his blessing so freely at this one. It seems to me as if the legal experts in the house are now becoming almost as bad as the farmers, for once they begin to speak they cannot stop. It is true that we think that we may justifiably bestow our blessings upon this Bill, because it is in reality a major step and an important development in South Africa’s legal history. We are very pleased to see the provisions of this Bill on the Statute Book. However, there is a certain aspect of the matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister could possibly help us in this regard by giving us an indication of how he feels about this matter. It concerns, in the first place, clause 4(d). One of the recommendations which may be made is—

That, read in conjunction with clause 5(5), in which it is provided that if the Commission feels that a certain matter, after its having investigated that matter, requires legislation, the Commission may go so far as to prepare draft legislation itself, which of course is also necessary. However, the problem is now that we know that if there is to be a codification of South African law, of any section of the law, then it will have to be done by means of legislation. In other words, draft legislation in that connection will have to be prepared by the Commission. Now I want to remind the hon. the Minister in the first place that the codification of South African law is a contentious matter among South African jurists. Then, too, it is a tremendous task which will have to be undertaken. Now, this is being specifically mentioned in this measure, which is an indication that the Commission will have to deal with it, and that rather high priority will have to be given to it. Naturally, if the Commission prepares a programme in which it is stated that certain sections, or in actual fact the entire law, is to be codified, the Minister will of course not be able to say that this should not be done, for then it will have been specifically stated in the Statute Book. My problem is not that the Commission may apply codification without Parliament, for of course everything has to come to Parliament. My problem is that if the Commission, the persons appointed to it, feel that the codification of a certain section of the South African law, or the entire body of law, is of the utmost importance, they may proceed immediately, investigate the matter, and in actual fact, prepare a draft Bill. This is the whole of the task, and it is a tremendous one. It is a task which is going to take a tremendously long time. Since it is such a contentious matter a great deal of public money will have to be spent on it, in terms of the time which this will take. The result is that since we are dealing with such a contentious matter the possibility may arise that a tremendous amount of time and money will be wasted on that investigation and in preparing the draft Bill in which the relevant section of the law is being codified. To give the House an idea of what a tremendous task this is, I can mention that the German legal code which was drawn up took 22 years to complete. The codification of the Swiss civil law took 15 years to complete and the Greek codification took 111 years. It is therefore a tremendous task. I do not want to adopt a standpoint either for or against codification here. I think it would be of value if this Commission instituted an investigation and made a recommendation in regard to whether or not it is desirable to codify. It may appear in the end that it will be of tremendous advantage to South Africa to codify the law, to such an extent that in the end just as much praise and blessings will be heaped and bestowed on the hon. the Minister as on this Bill, and he will be known as Justinianus Pelser. These are all possibilities. To give the House an indication of what people say, people to whose opinion a tremendous amount of importance is attached in legal circles, namely Hahlo and Kahn, I shall quote from their book. The South African Legal System and its Background, on page 73—

This is only an indication of how contentious the matter may become.

Give me an opportunity to reply now.

I shall. I just want to say that the only reason why I mention this is not because I think that it should be investigated, but because I want the assurance from the hon. the Minister that time and money will not be wasted on the actual codification before we have had an urgent public debate, particularly in legal circles, on the entire aspect of codification.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my thanks for the way in which this measure has been received on both sides of the House. I could also mention that the hon. member for Houghton, who is not here, but who would have liked to have been present, stated that she supports this measure. The support is therefore general. But we should not have greater expectations of this measure than will in the long run be realized. I am pleased the hon. member for Durban North reserved to himself the right to disagree, if necessary, with a recommendation of the Law Commission if it is brought before this House. Now I want to say that I reserve precisely the same right to myself, and for that reason it will not be exclusively in the hands of the Law Commission. It will be a convenient and useful body, but I cannot, in the nature of the case, accept all its recommendations. I bear the responsibility in the long run, and this House bears the responsibility in the final instance.

I come now to the hon. member for Florida, who seems to be a little concerned about the question of consolidation, with regard to which there is of course a difference of opinion. But I should like him to read clause 4 carefully. It reads—

All it has to do is make recommendations.

It should be read in conjunction with clause 5(5).

Yes. It can also prepare and submit Bills, and then these may still be rejected. [Interjection.] It has to submit its programme to me, and since I know it is such a contentious subject I do not think I shall give it my immediate approval. That is the point. There is not much more I have to say. I want to repeat that I appreciate it very much indeed that this measure was received in such a spirit. I am grateful for that. Then, in the last place, I want to express my appreciation for the good work which the existing Law Revision Committee has done.

Congratulate the maiden speech, man!

Yes, I am coming to that. I really want to congratulate the hon. member for Vereeniging on the contribution he made and the way in which he made it. He really did so in an exceptionally worthy manner and spoke a great deal of sense. His father was a friend of mine, and it is a pleasure for me to be sitting in this House with him. I foresee a very fine future for him if he continues as he did today.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.