Mr. Speaker, I move—

Tuesday: 2.15 p.m. to 7 p.m.

Friday: 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.; 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.

Agreed to.

Sir, when the debate was adjourned last night, the hon. member for Mooi River was introducing the subject. On behalf of this side of the House I want to congratulate him as the new chief spokesman on Forestry on the Opposition side. I must say it is with a tinge of sadness that I today recall the previous member for South Coast who is no longer in this House. The hon. member spoke about the future of the timber industry. I intend referring to that in my speech as well. But before I do so, I should like to perform a few tasks of a pleasant nature.

The first is that I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Forestry and the department most heartily on the successful Green Heritage campaign of least year. It was a very well-planned campaign and I think that it succeeded to a very large extent in attaining its objectives, i.e. to foster in public bodies, schools, private bodies and the public an awareness of our great and wonderful tree heritage. I think this will still have its effect for many years to come. Many people made a contribution, but I should like to mention the name of the wife of our Minister of Forestry, i.e. Mrs. Marthina Botha, who delivered speeches in a very charming manner, and wherever she was called upon to assist, she was willing to render assistance which she did in a very competent manner. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Forestry to convey our special thanks to her. Then, on behalf of this House, I should like to take leave of the Secretary for Forestry today. Mr. Manie Malherbe has been serving in the Department of Forestry for more than 40 years, a long period, therefore, and a fine achievement. He was Secretary for Forestry for seven years. It is interesting to note that he was one of the first group of students who underwent his full training here in South Africa. During the time that he was Secretary, he did a great deal for Forestry. I can think of various Acts which were piloted through in his time. For example, the consolidation of the Forestry act, which was a major task, the Wattle Act, which stabilized this industry to a large extent, and the legislation in respect of wilderness areas, which introduced protection for wildernesses. Then I am also thinking of the legislation in respect of mountain catchment areas, and the declaration of individual trees and forests as protected trees and forests. We may say that Mr. Malherbe has shown in this time that he is a great lover of nature and that he is very enthusiastic about the forestry industry. We should like to thank him for what he has done and wish him a very happy future.

Another small task I want to perform is to thank the Minister for having established a forestry region at Humansdorp as well, the Tsitsikamma forestry region. I am very pleased that justice is now being done to Humansdorp as far as this is concerned. It is one of the most beautiful natural forest regions in the country and there is still considerable potential for expansion. There are also large regions of mountain catchment areas which will mean a large volume of work for the regional office.

I actually want to speak about the future of the timber industry. In the past wood played a very important role. Wood was indispensable to man, especially in the form of firewood. Today we use wood and wood products in virtually every sphere of our lives, from the newspaper we read to the match with which we light a cigarette and the beautiful furniture in our homes. Due to the fuel crisis we have been made aware anew of the fact that wood is a very important product. An American writer had the following to say in this regard—

We see, therefore that wood is also a very excellent product as far as pollution is concerned. I want to agree with the hon. member for Mooi River. We can forget about the idea that plastic is going to replace wood. I think such a fear is totally unfounded. Wood is now coming into its own again. As our population grows over the years, we are going to require more and more wood. Today I want to say that there is only one way in which we can really ensure the existence of the timber industry, and that is by having attractive prices for timber products. I want to say thank you today to the hon. the Minister and the department since they are already moving in this direction, and since timber prices have risen considerably during the past year. I think it was essential. I do not mean to suggest by this that a great need for cheap loan money does not exist. Later this afternoon we shall deal with the Bill which tends to move in this direction. It is a fact that plantations cannot be planted with money on which an interest rate from 10 to 15% has to be paid, for then it becomes totally uneconomical.

Our forests are worth a great deal to us because they provide us with wood, but I do, however, want to say something more about the multi-purpose use of forests. The mountain catchment areas, natural forests and plantations may be utilized to better effect. Here I am referring particularly to the flora and fauna present in the forests. It is interesting to note that there are timber farmers in the United States who make more money from renting out forests for hunting purposes, for picking berries and flowers and by charging people an admission fee to ramble about in them, as well as for accommodation in the forests, than they make from the timber itself. I know that the department has already done much in this direction, but I think a wide field is still lying fallow. I am thinking, for instance, of more amenities for mountaineers, the provision of huts in the mountains for nature-lovers, ramblers, researchers, fishermen, photographers, and so forth. These people will come from far afield to enjoy the beautiful scenery and these amenities. More paths and footpaths should be constructed which, in turn, could be very useful for purposes of fire-fighting. Private land-owners should also be encouraged to give the public access to their forests.

I was in Pretoria recently and had the privilege of attending a meeting there of the new Forest Advisory Council. The establishment of this body spells great progress for the timber industry since it is a statutory council. I was impressed by the way in which so many differing interests were drawn together in this council. The Department of Forestry, the Department of Industries, the timber-growers, the saw-millers, the paper producers, the pulp manufacturers and the mine-timber manufacturers—in fact, everyone who has an interest in the timber industry—are concentrated in one council. I am convinced that the establishment of the council will form the basis for proper progress in the timber industry. A wide field is still lying fallow and the Forest Advisory Council can play a major role if it co-operates with the department. The foundations for such co-operation have now been laid.

I want to express the hope here today that many young men will embark upon a career in the timber industry. The State makes many facilities available, for example, Saasveld where men may receive technical training free of charge. The University of Stellenbosch, with its Department of Forestry, provides facilities for graduates. Attrative State bursaries are available for this purpose. I am therefore expressing the hope that many more young men will take an interest in the forestry industry.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House should like to associate ourselves with the words the hon. member for Humansdorp addressed to the outgoing Secretary for Forestry, Mr. Malherbe. Mr. Malherbe has been serving in this department for many years and he, therefore, witnessed the way in which this industry had been developing at an accellerated pace during the past number of years. In his capacity as Secretary his helping and guiding hand was appreciated by the timber farmers of South Africa. On behalf of our side of the House, I want to express our gratitude for this and wish him everything of the best on his retirement from the service of the department.

†Yesterday evening when I was introducing the debate on this Vote, I discussed the question of the export of wattle chips to Japan, something that has been undertaken by the Wattle Growers’ Union. I wish to emphasize that this export has introduced a totally new dimension to the timber industry in South Africa. It has made every single piece of available timber of economic importance to the timber farmer. The effect has been a revolutionary rise in prices and a revolutionary approach by timber buyers towards the suppliers of timber in South Africa. It is of significance that in the last year since this contract was undertaken, the price of timber has risen more than in the previous 20 years. I believe that the wattle growing industry can only benefit. I think that they are to be congratulated that they have gone out and sought a market for their product in the face of a world, as I explained earlier yesterday, in which plastics seem to be taking over the whole of this particular type of market. I think the industry deserves the support of this House and everybody who is concerned with the timber industry. However, there are some problems which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, inter alia, the question of permits. My constituency is a very big timber growing area. I want to say that I understand entirely the problem of the department and the Minister in allowing permits for afforestation in areas like mine which are vitally important watersheds. Yesterday I had a lot to say about the Umgeni River under the Water Affairs Vote. A large part of my constituency falls within the catchment area of the Umgeni River. I want to say that it is absolutely vital if we are to meet the needs for timber in this country, that as many permits as possible should be allocated as soon as possible. I realize that this will cast a tremendous burden on the Department of Forestry who will have to allocate and delimit certain areas where afforestation will be allowed and other areas where it will not be allowed in the interests of water conservation. However, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that there are many people in my constituency who have applied for permits and have the financial resources to undertake this planting out of their own income, without having to apply to the State for loans. They complain that they are being held up and are not able to undertake this planting which is absolutely essential if we want to come near to meeting the need for timber production in this country by the turn of the century.

Then I come to another factor with regard to planting, namely the question of obtaining loans. I want to say this with all the love in the world for the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure; one appreciates what they do, but in the timber industry there is a definite antipathy on the part of farmers to go to that particular department for loans, because of the fact that in the past, farmers in financial difficulty have had to approach the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure for assistance, and it has come to have a stigma. This is not my word; it is a word which is used frequently by timber farmers. I understand the workings of Government, and I know that this is the only way in which loans can be made available by the Government to farmers to undertake planting, but I wonder whether a formula cannot be found through which it is made quite clear that a person who applies for a forestry loan is on a totally different basis than that which is assumed to apply at present. I do not quite know how it can be done. I would welcome a chance to discuss it with the Secretary or somebody else, so as to find something which will allow my timber farmers, people of substance, but who do not want to undertake a long-term investment of this nature, to obtain a loan of this sort without having what they regard as a stigma attached to them by reason of the source of their loan.

Now I come to the question of prices. The approach which I believe is the right one and which is now being adopted, is that you must start with the grower of timber. In the past—this is again a phrase which is borrowed from the South African Timber Growers’ Union—the policy of establishing the price to the producer has been the “left-over” policy. In other words, you started with the end product and worked your way back with a reasonable margin of profit to everybody. What was left over, was the price obtained by the producer. Sir, if we are to meet the need we have for timber in this country, that policy can simply not be followed any longer. I believe it is terribly important that we realize that the timber producer has to have an incentive. There has never been a time in the history of this country when it was more imperative than now, in view of the situation which has arisen over the past years, that this policy should be adopted. The timber grower should receive a price which covers his investment and gives him a reasonable incentive to go on with the industry. I think that the whole question of the rationalization of the timber industry has to be approached very, very seriously indeed. I am quite certain that the hon. the Minister and his department, together with the new council, will look into this matter. It frequently happens that whenever you go to timber-growers’ congresses you see trains loaded with timber going north and trains loaded with timber going south. You see different consignments going to different markets. In view of the increasing cost of railing timber about South Africa, I wonder when the time will come when we shall have a really good look at the consignments of timber in order to make sure that the timber is sent to the nearest possible market. If this is done, it will cut out a great deal of the cost of transporting timber, which is a waste cost for both the processing industry and the grower. I believe there is an awful lot to be said for a thorough investigation of the method in which timber is consigned to different factories.

I wish to refer briefly to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp. He referred to the question of the mountain catchment areas. Just like the hon. member for Humansdorp I am fortunate enough to have a mountain catchment area, the Giant’s Castle nature reserve, in my constituency. I was fortunate enough to be there when the hon. the Minister opened it. This is a totally new dimension in recreation in South Africa, but it introduces all kinds of problems which the department will have to handle because, ultimately, they are the people who are responsible for the areas in the mountains which are proclaimed as catchment areas. I wonder how far the department would be prepared to go to make these areas real wilderness resort areas for the general public. I think that the implications are very, very extensive, because if the land of a private farmer is proclaimed by the department as a catchment area, there are certain things which can be done by the owner and other things which cannot be done in terms of the proclamation. If the department takes the next step, namely to make these areas available to the public —something which I think they ought to do—in co-operation with, for instance, the Natal Parks Board or some other body in the other provinces, there will be tremendous resource for recreation in these mountain areas. This step, however, carries with it the obligation which is placed on whoever the administering authority is, to ensure that the person who owns the ground does not suffer damage or loss by reason of fire, fences being broken down and this kind of thing. I believe that this is an enormous resource which can be used by people. We can merely think of the opportunities that there would be for fishing. I have mentioned before in this House that in America the sum of money that is spent on fishing each year comprises a string of six noughts. A tremendous amount of money is spent on the tackle which is purchased, on travelling, on clothing, on tents and all the equipment needed for fishing. I think that this department could well look at this matter and, as I say, they may well have to do it because I cannot see that the department with its present staff position will be able to extend their own establishment much further, except for the fact that there seems to be a tremendous attraction for occupations such as game guards and forest wardens among young men in South Africa. The Natal Parks Board turns away people who apply for positions in that particular board by the hundred. I am quite sure that the department should see itself as a body which can undertake this kind of development. They would not be short of young and dedicated people who would give their lives to the development of this kind of resource. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mooi River really made a fine speech. He must have made a tremendous impression on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, for he who is normally so self-satisfied, sat motionless with a more or less sour expression on his face. I cannot understand it. However, as things develop in this House today, we shall see whether the hon. member maintains his rigid expression.

I want to speak about a delicate matter today, a matter which will cause feelings to run high and which will in all probability evoke normal reactions. I am asking you, Mr. Chairman, to watch carefully if you want to observe the change which will take place here. I want to speak about the position of our timber industry and, firstly, quote a few figures in that regard. In 1973 we consumed 9,5 million cub. metres of timber; 17% of that quantity, i.e. 1,6 million cub. metres, was consumed by the paper industry, mainly for newspapers and magazines. At present the wood from 60 000 ha of afforested areas is used by the newspapers annually. Twenty-four years hence, i.e. only five years after I leave Parliament, the annual wood requirements of the paper industry will demand an afforested area of 300 000 ha. We will therefore not even have enough wood for manufacturing sufficient paper for our newspapers. The picture revealed by these figures is an alarming one. We just do not have enough land nor the climate to fulfil even this one single need. This is the problem confronting us.

At least we are getting television.

I can tell the hon. member for Paarl that in spite of television, the position I have pointed out will nevertheless come about. The figures I have quoted represent a reliable advance estimate. I obtained the figures from Mr. Malherbe who is a good official.

Now we are saddled with the position that we have to contend with newspapers which publish cheap and meaningless articles and photographs. We are saddled with the position where, every Sunday and during the week as well, unsavoury trash appears before our eyes. We see an unparalleled exploitation of human anguish and human sorrow. We see an invasion and an exposure of private and intimate affairs and how they are presented in a banal manner. We experience character assassination and an assault on the image of honourable citizens.

Order! The hon. member should rather come back to the Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the misuse of wood.

The hon. member may make his point, but he should not digress too far from the Vote.

I am making out a case on the misuse and wastage of paper, and wood is the basic raw material in the manufacture of paper. If they cannot fill the newspapers and magazines with a lot of gutter stories, they fill the blank spaces with photographs of nudes. I want to mention a few examples to you in this regard.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss what has appeared in the newspapers. The hon. member has already made his point concerning the misuse of wood and paper, but he should not digress too far from the Vote.

Yes, Sir, I am trying to make out a case in connection with the purposes for which paper is used. Here we have an unproductive wastage of a raw material. Am I not entitled to make out a case for that? If I am not entitled to make out a case for that, I shall resume my seat at once.

The hon. member may discuss it, but he should not lead the discussion too far away from the Vote.

I want to substantiate my argument by means of examples, without arguing with the Chair.

The hon. member may not digress too far from the question of the utilization of forests. He may not discuss the contents of newspaper articles, and so forth.

Then I want to put it this way: The manufacture of paper is one of the major factors draining away our wood supplies in this country. The use of paper for newspaper will increase to such an extent that, towards the end of this century, we shall not have enough wood to manufacture newsprint alone, irrespective of the other uses which are essential. I am trying to make out a case about this and in putting my standpoint I want to prove how misuse is being made of our paper by printing all manner of trash and unproductive and uneducational things. I want to prove this, and in this regard I just want to mention a few examples. Here we have a photograph taken from behind … [Interjections.]

The hon. member should not try to circumvent the ruling of the Chair. The hon. member should confine himself to the activities of the department; he may not discuss the contents of newspaper articles here.

I shall abide by your ruling, Sir. I want to say that we should offer vehement protest against the fact that newspapers and magazines containing uneducational and cheap trash are misusing one of our most valuable resources. We should raise serious objections to that. As far as the preservation and advance estimates of the potential of our raw materials are concerned, I want to ask that the possibility of rationing newsprint and paper made available for certain publications be very thoroughly investigated. I am saying this in the interests of our fatherland and also in the interests of this raw material which, at the end of this century, will be one of our scarcest raw materials. It is essential that plantations be established in those climatic regions in our country which are the most fertile and are blessed with the highest rainfall and also have the best type of soil. We cannot afford to waste such a valuable raw material in such a way. As conditions are today, only 15% of the paper we see before us daily is reused, and 85% just goes to waste. In the second instance, therefore, I want to ask that we should start with a thorough programme of inquiry in order to ascertain to what extent we can reuse paper.

I want to conclude with a few statements in English.

†I say, Sir, that we need a new industrial revolution and that that industrial revolution must take place in the area of a new technology for the reusing and recycling of materials which we extract or divert from nature. That is imperative. In the second instance, I want to say that we face the possibility today that the present focus upon air and water pollution and the disposal of solid wastes may infuse the public illusion that all these problems may be salved by money or by legislation; that they may be solved by technology and that they may even be solved by litigation. I maintain, Sir, that we cannot solve these problems where we have to do with the misuse and the irresponsible waste of limited materials and limited resources. We cannot afford it any longer. [Time expired.]

Sir, eager as I am to do so, I shall not be able to follow, the hon. member for Carletonville since I am sure you would rule me out of order. For that reason I want to start by saying that the Minister of Forestry has conflicting responsibilities in his official capacity. On the one hand he has to provide for the timber requirements of the country, especially for the future, for which he has to plan new forests and plantations at a rate of approximately 50 000 ha per annum. The prospect is being held out of the private sector planting approximately half of that and the Department of Forestry the other half.

On the other hand he is also the guardian and custodian of more than 1 500 000 ha of State forest land, apart from the 51 000 ha Bantu Trust forest land. Of this figure only approximately 233 000 ha is afforested area. Therefore, the hon. the Minister is responsible for approximately 1 301 000 ha of natural area in South Africa, consisting of mountains, catchment areas, vleis and mountain-sides, natural veld, indigenous forest, etc. So this probably gives the hon. the Minister the largest degree of responsibility for the protection of our natural heritage, more responsibility than any other organization or person I know of has, and in some respects even more responsibility than the National Parks Board and the Provincial Administrations have that are charged with nature conservation.

Sir, everything, from the tiniest plant to the largest animals, such as elephants, is his responsibility. On the one hand, the Minister has to develop and afforest with exotic trees, and on the other hand, he has to try and clear 100 000 ha, which is infested with exotic invader plants. I see from the report that he has succeeded in clearing 23 000 ha in this way and in eradicating the exotic bushes and invader plants. Then, in addition, there is still the large nature conservation task he is charged with.

Sir, what would that embrace? In the first place, it embraces soil erosion, which must be guarded against; it embraces the protection of the water-sponges in the vleis in our mountain catchment areas, where our country’s fountains and rivers have their origin. The preservation of our enchanting and valuable indigenous forests is also his responsibility. In the previous century these forests were plundered and overexploited to a tremendous extent and also destroyed by extensive fires, but since 1930 exploitation has been tackled in a more responsible way. I believe it is being done today with the largest degree of circumspection. Our precious wood such as stinkwood, yellow wood, white alder and other kinds have consequently become very scarce and also very expensive at State auctions. Some of South Africa’s rare flower and plants species are to be found on State land under the control of the hon. the Minister.

The “Pride of Franschhoek” completely disappeared from the map and from the view of scientists for a whole number of years, so much so that they thought that this beautiful South African flower had become extinct. Finally a small number were rediscovered in the Franschhoek Valley on Forestry land. But large areas where these beautiful flowers used to grow have been afforested to such an extent that these plants can no longer grow there. The natural habitat of this exceptional plant species has been destroyed by the plantation of forests, particularly the exotic pine species. The rare “Vleiroos”, Orothamnus zeyheri, had almost completely disappeared until it was rediscovered just recently, but it has now been found that there are only four known places in the whole of South Africa where it can still be found today. Of those four places three are under the control of the hon. the Minister of Forestry and one under the control of the Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape Provincial Council. About 50 of these plants grow on this area of 50 morgen, which is fenced in, and falls under the control of the Department of Nature Conservation of the Cape Province. There are an additional 50 plants in the other three areas under the Minister’s control.

I am mentioning this, Sir, to give you an idea of how important this Minister’s responsibilities are as far as the protection of these rare plants is concerned. Then there is the very rare Stompies Mimetes species which is to be found in the Knysna area in particular, in the Cape “fynbos”, an area which is ideally suited to the planting of exotic pine species. These plants are to be found at places such as Spitskop as well as in the Jonkersberg. I should very much like to see, before afforestation takes place, a thorough survey being made of the types of rare species existing in this “fynbos” or areas which have to be afforested, so that they may be protected. Botanical forest reserves ought to be established under the control of Kirstenbosch, and I should appreciate it if the hon. the Minister of Forestry would consider assigning an area such as the “Garden of Eden” to the charge of an organization such as Kirstenbosch so that a thorough study may be made, and to serve as an additional show case with the international reputation of Kirstenbosch.

But it is not only rare plants which are being threatened and which are under the control of this hon. the Minister. There are also rare bids and species of game. Just think of the Cape parrot which used to be found in large flocks in the vicinity of Knysna. Today there are only a few of them. There is also the crowned crane. We also think of animals such as klipspringers, blue duikers and reedbuck, and others, which have become tremendously rare in especially the Cape Province during the past years. Do you know, Sir, that the mountain zebra of the Cape is one of the three rarest species of game in the world today and that, under the control of the hon. the Minister, there are only a few of them to be found in the Outeniqua Mountains at present, and one often wonders how effectively they are protected there or how easy it is to hunt them, for there are enough adventurous young men who would like to experience an adventure of that kind.

Even elephants, the southernmost elephants in the world, are under the control of the Minister of Forestry. Ten or 12 of them are still to be found in the Knysna forest, in the Harkerville reserve. Not only I but countless others as well have made serious representations to the hon. the Minister for that area to be fenced in and proclaimed a national park for the protection of the elephants, and not only the elephants, but also that excellent natural forest which ought to be safeguarded against invader plants, such as Blackwood trees and other Acacia species which come from Australia. The greatest cause for concern is how to protect the ecology. Although the relevant section of the department possibly has enough botanists to discharge this important responsibility, grave doubts exist as to whether there are enough zoologists to make the necessary surveys and to accept responsibility for the execution of this major protection task. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Benoni furnished us with fairly interesting facts about our natural heritage. I think he displayed a strong sense of responsibility in respect of forestry and our nature conservation. I, in turn, should like to direct my attention at a few of the commercial aspects related to our forestry industry. Before doing so, I too, should like to wish the Secretary for Forestry, Mr. Malherbe, who is about to retire, everything of the best. We do not believe he is really going into retirement; he is merely stepping out of the department. I say this because I believe he will continue to mean a great deal to the forestry industry for many years to come.

In the latest report of the department we read the following (page 7)—

And further on—

The per capita consumption of timber in the Republic may be expected to increase, and this … will make great demands on today’s limited area of afforested land.

The lesson we learn from this, is that we shall have to produce through the agency of the private sector and through the agency of the State. I agree with the hon. member for Mooi River that it will be essential for every particle of wood we can produce to be marketed in a useful way, otherwise we shall build up a backlog which we shall not be able to make up under any circumstances. For that reason I welcome this new agreement entered into by the wattle-growers with Japan. In terms of this agreement wattle chips of any kind will be exported, no matter how long, short, crooked or bent they are. Financially this will mean a great deal to the growers. We want to pay tribute to the leaders in the wattle industry who were able to enter into this advantageous agreement with Japan. It is advantageous not only as far as the sale of wattle is concerned; but also in the sense that it roused into activity the competitors, the suppliers who displayed some obstinacy in the past, so that it has become possible for our country to reap the fruits. As far as forestry is concerned South Africa is becoming a leading country in the world in respect of technique, research and organization. That is why it is necessary for this industry to be organized in as orderly, realistic and profitable a way as possible. In this regard I want to express my thanks to all those concerned in this matter, but in particular to this hon. Minister who has, in the past few years—and this is acknowledged by all the organizations throughout the country which are concerned in this industry—done what has never been done throughout the years in the interests of this industry. The Forestry Advisory Council functions well. We realize that there are still bottlenecks and stumbling blocks which have to be overcome. As far as I am concerned there are, in fact, still bottlenecks which affect the industry.

In the first instance I want to tell the hon. the Minister I think the time has now arrived, especially in view of the new prospects existing for the sale of wattle bark, for the whole idea of quotas to be reviewed. I think this is essential, for the present position is based on facts which are no longer realistic and therefore create a false impression. With the existing prospects, not only for the bark but also for the wood, and in order to encourage people to plant and to produce more, I think it is necessary that this whole idea be revised and that a totally new survey be made. There are areas today which are indicated as so-called bark areas and which consist of thickets or jungles, and which just no longer create a practical and realistical image of the true situation. There is also another bottleneck I want to mention in this regard. It has come to my notice, and I want to draw attention to it, that some of the suppliers and other bodies are currently in the process of finalizing longterm contracts with growers, contracts extending over a period of 10 or even 15 years. I am hesitant about and have reservations in regard to this procedure, mindful of the fact that in the past the bodies that had such agreements displayed a degree of bureaucratic obstinacy, to the great detriment of our growers. To be specific, it promoted manipulation and an almost monopolistic situation. It brought about surpluses, and the result of this accumulation was that these growers turned to the Government for help. The Government, however, was powerless since these growers had bound themselves contractually, and there was nothing the Government could do. At the moment the position is the other way round. It happened at a time when there were surpluses. Now a shortage is building up, however, and I do not think the need exists for growers to enter into such contracts. As has already been quoted here, the grower received the residual price in the past, i.e. after everyone had taken a slice from the cake. Only after everyone had had their cut, was any attention given to his case. As evidence of this I may just mention that block prices have risen by only 27% since 1952, while consumer prices have risen by 113% over the same period. This is an indication that the grower has not been treated justly. Therefore, the position is completely different today. I do not think a control board is the answer to this, for a control board is a body which acts when there are surpluses and not when there are shortages. I personally think that a control board will only place a damper on the industry, and consequently I am not in favour of one. Moreover, we have a very sympathetic Minister and we also have other bargaining machinery which is more effective today. In this regard, therefore, I want to sound a word of warning. I am not convinced that long-term contracts are the full answer and that they are going to afford our people full protection. Rather than enter into such contracts, even if it is on a sliding scale of market prices, I still think it would be more advisable for our people to give preference to co-operative societies as far as handling and bargaining is concerned. They should do this instead of entering into long-term agreements with suppliers and other organizations, even if it is in terms of market prices. I do not think it will afford full protection since these people are also growers. To a certain extent they also control the determination of prices. I believe that in the end it will still be possible to manipulate the position to some extent at the expense of the grower. That is why I should like to sound a word of warning to the growers I represent that they should give the matter serious consideration before they enter into agreements of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot even begin to pretend that I speak half as competently on this particular Vote as the hon. member for Ermelo. I enjoyed his discussion, and I learnt a great deal about the problems in the Department of Forestry. I also do not have any particular issue to take with the Minister, except that I want to discuss a problem. Like all of us, the Department of Forestry seems to me also to be caught up in the tentacles of inflation. The hon. the Minister can be a key person in either combating or stimulating inflation. As I have it, the Department of Forestry is in control of approximately 80% of the pine forests of our country. It is also generally expected that the department will obtain from the Price Controller an increase in the price of sawlogs. Some speculate that this increase will be in the region of 30%. This increase in cost is bound to escalate right down the chain, from the lumber miller to the merchant to the builder, and eventually to the home owner. I know that wood is used in many different ways, especially in the building industry. I want to refer to the problem that could develop here. The increase in rail tariffs has already been mentioned and I do not think this needs to be elaborated on any further here; but it is an additional problem. Therefore I say that everyone is feeling the pinch of inflation, also the department of this hon. Minister.

*The question is what measures the Minister has in mind for combating the problem in this regard. For instance, the hon. member for Humansdorp mentioned that it is still possible for timber to be used to a large extent, and that there is no danger of alternative building materials being able to replace timber. Nevertheless, I do think that we have a problem here. Various groups have mentioned the danger that alternative building materials, in the building industry in particular, would have to be used to replace timber should prices rise in to a unrealistic way. Some groups have even asked that the Government should subsidize timber production. I am referring here to an article which appeared in the Eastern Province Herald of 24 September. I quote what was said by the Eastern Cape Region of the Timber Trade Federation—

I am hesitant to advocate all the time that industries should simply be subsidized by the Government, but if no forward planning is undertaken in this regard, the danger may well arise that the building industry in particular will perhaps make use of alternative building materials to an increasing extent and that, in this way, the Minister’s department itself may be detrimentally affected in the long run. Nobody will deny that the quality of timber production, both by the State and private enterprise, improved tremendously. However, it would be ironic, that, while good quality building timber is available, the stage is reached where the building industry or buyers would no longer be able to afford it on account of unrealistic prices. It is to this problem that I merely wanted to draw the Minister’s attention.

Mr. Chairman, in the latter part of this century we witnessed a particularly striking migration of our people to the cities, so much so that the 1970 statistics show that 86,7% of our White population is concentrated in 13 urban complexes. This turn of events has not yet run its full course in South Africa and we may expect an increased rate of urbanization. The urbanization of the people in South Africa does, however, represent a source of danger to our people, for nature has lent to our national character a particular identity of its own. In the city our child’s world consists mainly of tarred streets, concrete walls, electric lights and the sound of motor cars. His link with nature has been severed and yet the vast majority of our children still hanker after open spaces, pure air, clear water, the stillness of the veld and the stars in the night sky. Most of our people are still moved by the wonders of nature, the majesty and the wholeness of creation. Man is impressed by a deeper realization of his mortality, his trainsience, but at the same time he also gains a vision of the exceptional place he as a being occupies in the plan of creation. In nature man again comes face to face with himself and gains renewed appreciation for the idea of a clear conscience before he can be happy. Our poet G. A. Watermeyer spoke of (translation) “we as sons of the sun and daughters of the morning dew” when he referred to urbanization. Here he touched on a fundamental idea. If we could succeed in nourishing many of our sons and daughters with the sun and the morning dew by bringing them into nature in their formative years before they shatter their hearts against concrete, we would already have offered them an identity of their own, integrity and resilience so that they would not turn into mass people. It is the very problem of urbanization and the large-scale mobility and anonymity of the community which creates further problems for us. Irrespective of the positive educational factors and the comprehensive professional opportunities the city offers, it is a source of danger to our young people. Space and privacy are lacking and an opportunity to rediscover the self disappears. He becomes a person who merely finds meaningless contact with passing people in fleeting moments.

From this point of view we should like to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the decision of making available for outdoor recreational purposes certain of the areas falling under his control. During the Green Heritage campaign of last year the establishment of a hiking trail from the Cape to the Soutpansberg was announced. We presume that a start had already been made with this matter and we should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made. We may just point out that no child in Switzerland stays away from camps and tours in the mountains during the school holidays. In Scotland educationists believe that pupils again find direction in nature and in the U.S.A. stay-at-homes have no playmates to associate with since everyone is out camping. Furthermore, I want to make a plea to our Minister to give special attention to amenities for outdoor recreation in state forests, which may be utilized by organized youth groups. We have in mind in this regard groups from primary schools, from secondary schools, from our universities, from our colleges and from organizations such as the Voortrekkers, Boy Scouts, and Girl Guides. I have in mind halls at centrally situated places where youth groups may spend the night. We are not asking for luxury amenities, but merely amenities which will suit the natural surroundings, and yet offer protection against inclement weather. At present our department controls approximately 1½ million ha of ground which may be extended by a possible 50 000 ha per annum. This is a large area. I know that the aim of the department is, inter alia, to deal with and control the areas with a view to water conservation. As far as I can ascertain, the aim is to supply the largest volume of pure water on a permanent basis by means of sound conservation practices. Veld control therefore plays a very important role. While I do not expect that the Department of Forestry should, in controlling water catchment areas, act as a producer of red meat, I nevertheless want to ask whether the preservation of game in the broadest sense cannot play a role in the control of conservation areas. Our game herds are decreasing year by year. Can we not extend the control of these areas in such a way that the preservation of game is scientifically reconcilable with the main objective in respect of the areas, namely the supply of water? If this can be done it will not only enhance the open air recreational potential of the state forests, but may also contribute to relieving the pressure on our national parks and, who knows, it may possibly lead to supplementing the red meat on our table.

Mr. Chairman, with the increasing population of our country, we find that forestry, and particularly timber plantations, is becoming a flourishing industry in South Africa. As time goes on, we will see that with the increasing population there will be an increasing demand for timber in South Africa. As we know, timber plays a very important part in any country’s economy. In South Africa it has become uneconomic to rely on imported timber. In fact, it will not be long before timber from Canada or any other country will no longer be available to us.

I believe that in our own country we still have vast stretches of land which are most suitable for the cultivation of timber plantations. I think of parts of the border area which I happen to know very well. I know there are many other areas, too, that are very suitable. For instance, we find that in the area of Fort Cunynghame, a mountainous area north of Stutterheim, Government plantations do exceptionally well. I know that gum trees, such as the eucalyptus, do exceptionally well there. Without having done any research on the subject, I have noticed from my own observations that not only do gum trees do very well on that particular mountain range, but that pinus insignus, pinus hylopanthis and wattle do very well there too. I know that there is an experimental station there which is doing a good job. I believe the time has come for us to consider cultivating trees in that area to a far greater extent. The climatic conditions are ideal for this purpose. Trees grow much faster there than in many other parts of the border. In the northern parts, of the Border especially, trees grow slowly.

Tremendous advances have been made in South Africa with timber plantations and tree cultivation and I know that the hon. the Minister is conscious of this as well. Yet, I believe that in future we shall have to consider doing more in this regard. By the turn of the century we will find ourselves very far behind unless we start now on developing plantations to a greater extent.

I am also particularly concerned about the protection of our indigenous forests. I refer here again particularly to the area which I know so well, the Border area. We have a beautiful indigenous forest on the Amatola range of mountains, close to King William’s Town. The Amatola mountain range is one of the most beautiful parts of South Africa and it is here too that we find some of our most beautiful indigenous trees. The Amatola range acts as a sponge and is in fact the catchment area of the great Buffalo River. This catchment area supplies the water for our four large dams to provide us with water for human consumption as well as for industrial purposes in the East London-Berlin-King William’s Town complex. The four dams we have there are the Maiden Dam, which is in the source of the buffalo catchment area of the Amatola range, the Rooikrantz Dam, the Laing Dam and the Bridledriftdam. These dams form four large water reservoirs. What is worrying us is that in terms of the consolidation plans, in respect of land for Bantu occupation, this catchment area, the sponge, the source of the Buffalo River falls into the area which has been earmarked for Bantu occupation. I really don’t know what the hon. the Minister or his department has done or is doing in regard to the protection of the sponges in this large catchment area. When it is handed over to the Black people, what steps will have been taken to conserve this area and the indigenous forests in particular?

We know that the Department of Forestry—I have had a fair amount of experience in this regard—is doing a lot to protect our coast-line. I know that people who own caravan and camping sites have to give certain guarantees in regard to the protection of the indigenous trees and shrubs growing along the coast-line. They must ensure that they do not make unnecessary footpaths through shrubs to the beaches. However, I am not so sure—I have had no experience of it either—that the department or the Government is doing that much about the protection of our indigenous forests particularly on the ranges which I have mentioned. I believe that we could develop the area even further west from the Amatola mountains, from the Peri mountains, on the southern aspect of that range, into a large tree plantation area in order to cultivate timber for our own use in South Africa. We find in all walks of life today that timber occupies a very important place in the economy of our country. In the short time at my disposal I want to say that I believe that if we could follow certain principles covering the whole industry, we will be doing the right thing. These are the three principles we should follow. Firstly, there is a demand by the Republic for the greatest amount of timber necessary for our economic security and this can only be obtained from the greatest available and suitable area of land, the land that I have already mentioned. Financial provision, legislation and current practices should be tailored to produce and make available for the market all marketable timber of whatever size, form, grade and species. Our aim should be to provide all the timber to meet all our needs from our own product here in the Republic of South Africa, and the time has now come when we should consider this very seriously. We must no longer rely upon timber imported from overseas. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that those days are past. We must produce our own timber locally and I believe that we can do it, particularly with the labour force that we have available in the areas which I have mentioned.

Sir, the hon. member for East London North will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will furnish him with a conclusive reply.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one matter on which we are probably all in agreement in this House, then it is that South Africa is comparatively poor in indigenous forests for commercial use and that South Africa is also comparatively poor in economic plantations, for certain reasons which I am unable to go into now. Sir, utilization must always be the watchword when we talk about timber and timber products. However, statistics show that through judicious afforestation South Africa has to a large extent succeeded in meeting its timber requirements from its own resources. Commercial forests provide about 87% of South Africa’s needs in respect of sawn softwood for the building industry and for industrial use. In addition we have succeeded in producing approximately 82% of South Africa’s total paper requirements for packaging or printing or writing. In addition, South Africa produces all its own mining timber, firewood, roundwood, wooden boxes and crates. Apart from this South Africa, produces timber for the manufacture of rayon pulp, fibre board, particle board and veneer products, which not only satsifies the local demand, but is also an important source of foreign exchange. An amount of about R47 million is earned from these exports annually, while foreign exchange to the value of about R200 million per annum is saved, an enormous saving, therefore, as far as foreign exchange is concerned. Sir, the only sphere in which South Africa still relies on imports to a very large extent, is the provision of sawn hardwood for furniture, construction work and industrial use. In this respect, too, 36% of the country’s requirements are already locally produced. However, there are indications that the demand for roundwood is going to grow from the existing 10 million cubic metres per annum to a demand of about 33 million cubic metres per annum by the end of this century. This means, Sir, that the area of afforested land will have to be extended by about 150% to 2 620 000 ha in order to maintain this degree of self-sufficiency. Owing to difficulties which I cannot go into now for lack of time, this will not be possible. There are, however, alternative steps that could be taken to cope with the expected shortages, such as, inter alia, improved silvicultural methods in order to obtain a higher yield per ha, more selective utilization of types and measurements of timber, improvement of quality by treebreeding, utilization of waste material by timber processing industries, the re-use of timber and timber products and, sixthly— and I want to dwell briefly on this last point—the improved utilization of the entire tree, with a resultant drop in forest waste. I want to dwell on this aspect of utilization, since I feel that a substantial amount of raw material in timber is still left in the plantations unutilized today, a loss this country cannot afford, particularly when one bears the shortages and the expected shortages in mind. This we definitely cannot afford, and this matter will have to enjoy the intensive attention of all of us. It is realized that owing to the nature of this waste timber it does not lend itself readily to economic harvesting and railage to urban industrial areas where it could be processed into sophisticated timber products. The processing industries which could utilize and process this waste timber as a raw material, should preferably, therefore, be established in the vicinity of the source of the raw material. It is surely wiser rather to transport the processed product to the market than to transport large volumes of raw material. Another benefit to be derived from this is that decentralized industries could be established in border areas where labour is more readily available than in the urban industrial areas. This is no new principle, Sir, because we know that the majority of our sawmills and some of our pulp industries are already situated close to the sources of raw material. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister whether there are any reasons or circumstances stopping those of our timber processing industries capable of utilizing waste timber, from establishing themselves in forested areas. It may be that there are certain difficulties or reasons why this cannot be done, of which I am not aware. However, if there are such problems, I should like to know their nature and extent. I should also like to appeal to all bodies and persons concerned with this matter to give their hearty co-operation to enable such industries, which could process the waste in the forest, to be established there, and thus to allow the manufactured product to be transported to the cities, instead of the raw material which is very difficult to transport.

Mr. Chairman, by means of the national promotion programme undertaken this year by the S.A. Forestry Industry in which the Department of Forestry also took part, we tried to achieve three objects. The first was to foster an appreciation for our natural heritage among our people. The second was to cultivate a love of trees and the products of our forests and plantations among our people. The third was to instill in our people a better realization of the role played by forestry in the economy of our country. It is with appreciation that we take cognizance of the fact that this programme of promotion is being extended, inter alia, by the appointment of honorary forest officers and the policy of the Department of Forestry to make available areas under its control for the purpose of open-air recreation. In other words, we are dealing here with a policy and a programme aimed at providing every South African with the opportunity to enjoy our forests and plantations, and also to attain to a greater knowledge of our flora. It is urgently necessary for recreation and knowledge to be combined in this regard. I am convinced that we in South Africa are running the risk of becoming estranged from our natural heritage so that in the future we shall not know it by name. Today we speed along the major roads of our country, from one city to another and from one appointment to another, while in fact we know very little about our forest estate, about the management of our plantations and forests. We know little of the marketing of our timber and other forestry products and the research that is done in regard to forestry. Thousands of South African school children know the names of their sport heroes. I think however that there are few children in South Africa today who know what a yellowwood tree or a stinkwood tree is or would be able to identify a baobab tree or a camphor tree. Chapter 8 of the department’s fine annual report deals with the extension that is provided. I note that use is made of exhibitions, talks and lectures, films, slides and radio programmes. I am convinced that good results will be achieved by means of this extension. We in South Africa have many organizations and societies. I have in mind this afternoon the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Voortrekkers, the land service movements, the Rapportryers, the Round Table etc. We have scores of organizations and societies of this kind and we have scores of speeches and dinners. In most cases people merely sit back comfortably and listen, and little is done. That is why I want to suggest this afternoon that the national promotion programme of 1973 be extended by co-ordinating all these organizations and societies into a powerful nature action group whose objective it would be to instill a love and knowledge of trees in our people. I see the bringing back of all our people to our soil, our teaching all our people the meaning and the value of our green heritage, as a factor which will bind people together in South Africa. Once we have achieved that aim, I believe we could eliminate many differences, and a sense of pride in what is really ours could develop in every inhabitant of this country, White and non-White. I believe that we in South Africa have become too fond of festivals in the Church and city halls. We come together, sit on hard chairs and often listen to long, boring speeches. I believe that we should convert these festivals into something like: “Know your green heritage.” We must take these people out to these forests and plantations of ours, to these opportunities that have been created, and there we should really teach our children about these trees we have in South Africa. We find packed pavilions at sports meetings—and I am not opposed to that— but in fact we sit there passively and no one really learns anything. I believe that we could make more use of opportunities of impressing upon our children the fact that our natural heritage must be conserved and protected. If we could only succeed in getting our people involved in the wide-ranging task of conservation and protection of the Department of Forestry, we should have progressed very far in this direction. In this lies an exceptional challenge for our South African youth, not only to know their film heroes and sport heroes, but also to know their trees, forests and nature, to know them by name and to be able to appreciate them. We must not be told by the visitor from abroad what we have to offer; we ourselves must be knowledgeable on the matter and pass our knowledge on to others. I believe that this is a challenge to the head of every family to teach his children to learn to know the wonderful world of our forests and to teach our children the true meaning of wood, that it is not just something to be wasted and burnt, but is a gift from the Almighty from which beauty is created and which we in this country can put to use in a very special way. I believe that this is also a challenge to each organization to create the opportunity for its members to make a real contribution to the knowledge of our heritage in order to keep our heritage in this country, green.

Mr. Chairman, today we have had a very pleasant and fruitful discussion under the Forestry Vote. What struck me was that there was great praise from both sides of the House for the achievements of the industry, achievements in which the Department of Forestry has also, over the past few years, played a great part. Everyone has become deeply aware of the great need we have in South Africa for timber and timber products. However, we do not have the potential to meet all our future requirements. Nor is it likely that we will readily be able to make up our shortage from abroad. During the past few years, as far as research is concerned, the foundation has been laid. In this way emphasis has been placed on good timber and the utilization thereof. Everyone concerned in this matter is aware that we must do what is necessary in time in order to meet South Africa’s requirements. In this way emphasis has been placed on good timber and its utilization. This awareness means a great deal to us, and has again become apparent in this debate. Therefore I think we may regard this debate as being one in which everyone who participated in it, made a positive contribution.

The hon. member for Mooi River raised a few very important matters, and I want to reply to them. I think it is very important that he raised them at this stage.

The first matter deals with permits. Hon. members will know that it became necessary a few years ago to direct and lead the planting programme in South Africa along the right road so that we could forestall what we feared could happen, viz. that with the large-scale planting of forests conflict with other interests could arise, inter alia, perhaps with the interests of the Department of Water Affairs which has to supply South Africa with water. Then, too, there are the interests of bodies which have to provide foodstuffs, as well as the interests of towns and cities which have to utilize the same land for other purposes. Because we did not have an excess of land at the disposal of this department, it was felt that conflicts with other interests could possibly occur. For that reason it was then proposed that we draw up a ground plan on which would be indicated what South Africa’s afforestation areas would be. In this way it will therefore be possible to determine where plantations can be established in future. Therefore the planting of forests in areas we would not like to see being afforested, should also be prevented. This is being done by means of the provision in the Act that we issue permits for the right to plant forests. It is these permits to which the hon. member was referring.

†The hon. member pointed out that in some areas, especially in Natal, there were people who were slow in implementing their planting programme. I have the responsibility to see to it that this does not happen and the point the hon. member made in this regard was a valid one. I may say that 740 applications were made, representing 204 000 ha of land to be afforested. At the outset, 612 permits were granted, representing an area of 152 000 ha. Quite a substantial percentage of those permits were therefore granted immediately. Of those, there were applications for 94 permits which were delayed. Of those, after a short investigation, permits representing 14 000 ha were permitted. Of the remainder, permits for only 6 000 ha were still delayed, because those permits were being asked for in critical areas. I believe those are the areas which the hon. gentleman pointed to today. Unfortunately, he represents one of the critical areas in South Africa. I am sorry, but that is so. He cannot help being the representative of that area, and I cannot help being the Minister concerned at this moment. However, I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that we should be very careful. We are doing our very best not to delay unduly permission for those areas to be planted. However, the hon. gentleman will know that we must be very careful, and we have to obtain the opinion of all people concerned. Unfortunately, we cannot expedite the matter, because it is too important and too much is involved. However, I promise the hon. gentleman that we will not hold back any permit longer than is absolutely necessary.

The hon. gentleman also referred to the export contract. This contract was entered into by the timber co-operation in Natal and a Japanese concern for the export of round about 250 000 cub. metres of mainly wattle chips per annum. This is an export contract which the hon. gentleman quite rightly regards as a contract which has lent quite a different dimension to the timber industry in South Africa. I agree with him. I am very glad that we came to a point where we could export this timber. It does not represent a very large quantity, only about 3% of timber produced in South Africa. However, I want to state it very clearly today that it was the agreement that we shall, in the export of our timber chips, try to utilize those quantities of material which normally are left behind in the plantations.

*I want to make this very clear, for we negotiated on this matter and I said that as Minister I found myself in a difficult position here. I can foresee that there is going to be a demand for that timber in future. Therefore, if I allow the timber to leave the country, I also want the assurance that the bodies concerned are going to do their best to export that portion of the timber which, as I have been informed, is not normally utilized. My department informs me that that portion of the wattle tree which normally remains behind when the trees are felled above the ground instead of level with the ground represents 150 000 tons per annum. Also that portion which is warped and twisted and which cannot normally be utilized because the mining industry, which takes a large portion of the timber, is very selective in its purchases and only skims off the best, can now be utilized. Instead of being left unutilized, it could be converted into an asset for South Africa, an asset which could today be worth a good deal of money. While on the one hand it is important for us to have this new outlet, I want to make an appeal today to all those who are going to benefit from the export contract at least to do their best on their part as well, so that I need not unnecessarily have to endure the reproach that South Africa is exporting timber which she can utilize to good effect herself. I hope that these bodies will take what I have now said to heart. I should like to help them, but then they must also help me.

The hon. member also referred to loans for the establishment of small plantations, a matter which we have been working on for a long time. The hon. member asked me whether the Department of Forestry could not deal with these loans itself, which are at present being dealt with by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. The hon. member is right. After having given it a proper chance, I know that other circles feel exactly the same way the hon. member does. My colleague and I are negotiating on the matter. Actually the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure was doing us a service by doing the work for us. Perhaps it is time the two departments discussed this matter again. I do not want to say anything further about the matter now, except that we are grateful for the services they have been rendering for us. We must remember that the Department of Forestry is a completely different department and that we asked the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure to deal with the loans in the same way they dealt with theirs. In other words, we were actually imposing a burden on them and creating additional work for them, which they did to the best of their ability. We could now examine the problems which occur in practice, and we could perhaps discuss this matter next year when this Vote comes up for discussion again.

The hon. member also referred to the wilderness areas. With references to our attempt to create wilderness areas, the hon. member asked me whether we could not also give attention to the position of private owners, whose farms could be declared mountain catchment areas. I want to explain to hon. members what the hon. member meant. He meant that, when we are obliged to declare a portion of a private property a mountain catchment area and administer it as such, we should do it as we are doing in regard to the State’s own areas, viz. to make it available for utilization by nature lovers. I think the hon. member has a point there, but it is, however, very difficult for the department to lay down such provisions. The hon. member will agree with me that efforts have been made during the past year or so to try to take everyone with us as far as the development of the natural areas in South Africa are concerned and to give them back to South Africa and to throw these areas open to the public. I know that there are great possibilities in throwing open the areas which fall under our control, as well as those areas which are privately owned. I want to mention an example. We are going to try to create a scenic foot-path which will be almost 3 000 kilometres long. This foot-path will cross private property as well and it will mean that this property will in this way be thrown open to public use. Therefore, when the hon. member puts such a question to me, he is not far off the mark. To tell the truth, this is the direction in which we are moving.

The hon. member for Humansdorp also covered a wide field on the subject of forestry. I am very grateful to the hon. member for Humansdorp for referring, when he spoke, with appreciation to the Secretary for Forestry, Mr. Malherbe, who will retire later in the year. This is perhaps the last forestry debate which Mr. Malherbe will attend in his capacity as Secretary. I, as Minister, wish to join the hon. member in paying tribute to Mr. Malherbe and express my gratitude for the privilege of having been able to have the services of such an excellent official. He is a person with whom I have been closely associated from the day I became Minister of Forestry, and a person with whom I have therefore worked in very close co-operation for a long time. There are the many measures which he and I have thought out together, such as the legislation which the hon. member mentioned, and so many developments in the department with which he as Secretary (was able to proceed). In past years I was in the fortunate position of being associated with him, and on this occasion today I want to convey my gratitude to him for being a very faithful, competent, loyal and excellent official. We want to wish him everything of the very best for the future. I think that as Secretary to the department Mr. Malherbe set a very high standard, a standard which will be built on by those who succeed him. I want to wish him, Mrs. Malherbe and their family, everything of the best for the future. Since we are entering the future with so many plans and Mr. Malherbe is so well-grounded in these matters, we want to ask him, if I should approach him in another capacity, always to be available to the Department of Forestry. I want to wish them everything of the best for the future and express my sincere thanks for the service which he has rendered to this country as Secretary for Forestry.

The hon. member for Humansdorp referred to the future of the timber industry in general and to the importance of the adequate provision of timber in this country. He also mentioned figures and to a certain extent repeated things which had previously been mentioned in this debate. I want to thank him for his contribution. The hon. member also referred to timber prices and asked us to fix realistic prices. I want to say at once that the fixing of timber prices is one of the major problems of the Department of Forestry. I inherited this problem. It has existed for years, but I believe that we are now approaching a period in which we will see an end to the dispute which has existed. There will be an end to it because we have, for the first time, created machinery with which to deal with it. In the forestry industry it has always been the case that prices were determined by supply and demand. There has always been a conflict with the hardwood grower, the grower producing wattle timber and other hardwood. They were unable to negotiate prices with the mining industry, for it had always been a buyers’ market. There was always the problem of oversupply on the part of the seller, as a result of which the buyer always determined the price. As a result there was almost no increase in the price of mining timber over the years, so much so that from 1952 until two years ago, the increase in the price of mining timber was only R1 per ton. I know of no other commodity the price of which remained so constant. It has always been a buyers’ market and not a sellers’ market. Apart from that the log prices, the timber in the round prices, have never really been controlled. The only means of determining prices was the department itself, and the department did not determine prices by simply announcing them. Because the department was itself active in this industry, it gave the industry an indication of what the price should be through the price which it charged for its product, and the industry usually adhered to that. In other words, the department fixed the price through its own example.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also referred to this matter. I want to tell him that his figures were not altogether correct. I should like to give him the precise figures. He said that as far as conifer timber was concerned, the Department of Forestry has an 80% share in the area. That is not correct; we have a 40% share in the area. In any case that share is great enough to have a very serious effect on the price itself.

Apart from that, there was only one stage in the entire spectrum of development of the forestry industry at which a price was fixed, namely in the case of sawn timber. The prices of sawn timber were in fact controlled, but the other timber prices were never controlled. The price was not controlled in respect of the owner of a plantation and, once the product had passed the sawn timber miller, it was not controlled either. There were representations to the effect that we should establish a control board. I opposed that idea from the outset. I said that we should not establish a control board. Internally this industry was tremendously divided. This is an industry with a great variety of products and activities. There is an entire series of practices from the planting offices to the eventual most sophisticated item of furniture. The entire industry was divided as no other industry in South Africa was. I then said: Let us bring the industry to a point where it is able to exercise its own control. I thought that there should be something like an advisory council. I know with what suspicion this idea was regarded. The hon. member for Mooi River will agree with me that there was a great deal of suspicion on the part of his own people in regard to this matter, because they thought it was not possible. They sat around a conference table for three years and they saw it could work, so much so that the entire industry decided to request that a Forestry Council be established. Today we have reached the stage where the Forestry Council is accepting its responsibility of taking care of prices as well. I want to say this to the Forestry Council and the industry outside: Over the past three years you have now had the opportunity in this your own Council of examining your industry. I have told you that I did not want to establish a control board. You have already laid the foundations of good co-operation, and I say to you now that it is time the Forestry Council considered establishing a committee within itself, a committee of experts who will keep an eye on the price position. After consultation this committee must then come to the Minister and tell the Minister what the prices should be. The Minister does not have legislation in terms of which he can announce the prices, but if the Minister accepts the committee’s price as being fair, then it will be an indication to the entire industry of what the price ought to be. I think it will work, and I think that this is the next step which has to be taken. I also think that this sound advice which I am now giving will be accepted by the Forestry Council. So much as regards the fixing of prices in the forestry industry. I want to inform the hon. member that with the progress we have made during the past few years we will eventually be able, with the next step, to reach the stage where, instead of the State having to intervene and appoint a control board and having a constant squabble about what the Minister said or did not say, or what the control board said or did not say, the industry should now set the example of how it is itself able to control prices without intervention on the part of the State. If that plan is carried out, I think it would be a good thing.

The hon. member also referred to the multi-purpose utilization of forests. This is the stage we have now reached. The forests in the catchment areas are not only used to produce timber. Today a forest is regarded as being something which produces timber, which produces water and as something which has a place in both animal and plant life. This is something which cannot be marketed commercially. There is also something for the public of South Africa to enjoy. Hon. members will recall that we said a few years ago that we should throw open the forests in the mountain areas to the public; that we should give these back to the country. Since the idea of giving these back to the country, in the sense in which I mean it, took hold, enormous interest has been awakened. So much development is in progress throughout South Africa in regard to throwing open these areas and attracting thousands of new interested persons, whether these are people who are going camping or merely going for walks, that this is very encouraging. Even schools are coming forward to an increasing extent and requesting that forest and nature reserves be made available with a view to vacation courses, etc. I want to mention an example to hon. members. In the Tsitsikamma we have one of these huge camping areas which is being made available to the public. We have received a tremendous number of inquiries in this regard, and hundreds of children have already been there. They visit this place over a weekend or spent a short holiday surrounded by nature. I think this is a fine development, and I am grateful that it has come about in this way. The multi-purpose utilization of forests is the right thing for this country of ours, for the sooner we get the public of South Africa to rediscover the natural beauty of their own fatherland, the sooner we eliminate frustration in the minds of people, frustration because they live in the urban concrete jungles and do not know what South Africa’s natural forests look like.

The hon. member for Carletonville referred to the manufacture of paper. What an interesting speech he made! The hon. member said that we would not have an overabundance of timber supplies in future. That is true. I want to inform the hon. member that by the end of the century the supplies which will have to be available for the manufacture of paper at the present consumption and the present growth rate will have to be six times more than they are today. This is true. This is the position throughout the world. Where on earth we are going to find all the timber to manufacture paper all over the globe, I do not know. The fact of the matter is simply that natural forests in the northern hemisphere are becoming depleted, for where man was able to gain access to natural forests in the cold portions of the northern hemisphere, he has already done so where it was possible to convey that timber by train or float it down rivers, but today the natural forest is already so remote that it is beginning to become uneconomic to exploit it. Sir, a very interesting fact is the following: We in the Republic of South Africa are fortunate because our timber growth in our climate is three times as rapid as that in the northern hemisphere; in other words, when the world discovers that it has insufficient timber and then wants to replant timber in the areas where it has been eradicated, it is going to take 100 years before that timber has grown to maturity, and what the world is going to do in the meantime we do not know. Sir, I also want to mention this interesting fact: I read the other day that the German Government is so concerned about timber shortages in the future—and 25% of the area of that country, as hon. members may perhaps know, is under afforestation—that they are going to spend R1,5 milliard on purchasing land and producing timber. Sir, I said a few days ago and I say it again that timber shortages are awaiting us as well, timber which is such an integral part of our lives and which is such an essential raw material. Awaiting the world in future is a great shortage of timber and timber products, and I do not know what it is going to do unless it adopts a very sensible course of action, and here I return to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Hercules, viz. that we should utilize our timber waste products to better effect. The hon. member raised a very important point here today. He asked what was being done in this regard and how we could help to ensure that that enormous quantity of waste products was put to good use. Until not very long ago more than 50% of the total content of a tree went to waste in the form of shavings, sawdust and off-cuts, etc. Years ago we began to see whether we could not, by means of tree-breeding, cultivate a better tree. Hon. members will be interested to hear that the reclamation at the time was only in the region of 45% to 50%. Through research we are trying to succeed in growing trees which will satisfy our requirements, in other words, trees with straight boles and smaller crowns. Today we already have noble timber varieties which give up to 75% reclamation as against the previous 45% to 50%. Hon. members would also be interested to hear that South Africa’s Department of Forestry is the world leader in this field. Whereas 50 to 60 and more years ago we obtained seed from the outside world, we are now being approached by those countries for refined seed. In other words, we can through breeding produce a better product, but that is still not enough. We are wasting vast quantities of timber through waste which remains unutilized. There is still a great deal of research which can be done into the reclamation and re-utilization of waste products. In this respect we could still do a great deal more. If we can reclaim only 50% of what is now going to waste, this would already be an important step forward. The hon. member for Hercules asked whether there were any problems standing in the way of this kind of thing. Yes, there are such problems. In the first place, one does not always have the entrepreneur who is willing to invest money in such a project. Fortunately more and more people are coming forward now who are prepared to invest money in such projects. Sir, one also has another problem: In the Eastern Transvaal, for example, the waste products are still of such small quantities that it is of no use discussing this matter with a pulp manufacturer, because the total volume is too small. Another factor is that transportation can become a serious problem. Sir, when I refer to transportation problems, then I am referring not only to the distance over which the product has to be conveyed, but also to the conflict between road and rail transportation. A prospective manufacturer will say to you at once: “Look, I can erect a factory, but only on one condition; if I am manufacturing a sophisticated product, then I must have the right to be able to convey it privately by road, not only by train”, and if that person does not receive a road transportation permit, then he refuses to invest his money. For that reason I believe that there should be thorough consultation in such cases. When such a problem arose in the past, the Road Transportation Board eventually granted a permit in certain cases—I am thinking here of Piet Retief and Port Elizabeth—making it possible to convey the products by road. The manufacturers tell you that rail transportation, because the product is sophisticated and can very easily be damaged in transit, could cause a loss of 15% to 20%. In the past therefore the road transport board was wisely prepared to adopt an accommodating attitude. My reply to the hon. member is therefore that there are in fact problems of this kind, but that I believe and hope that in future, when such problems crop up again, all the bodies concerned will act in a matter-of-fact and reasonable manner to make it possible to establish processing industries in remote areas of South Africa, to bring this timber of ours which would otherwise be lost in the form of waste, back into the system for re-utilization. But, Sir, I want to add this: It is essential that we intensify our research in this regard. The re-utilization of waste products is important, and research can do a great deal. Therefore I want to say today that I intend, with the reappointment of the Forestry Council, to appoint one or two persons to the council specifically on the basis of their scientific knowledge, and to instruct the council, apart from its responsibility to see to the economy of this industry, also to take upon itself the responsibility of looking after the matter of scientific research in the industry. With a view to this I intend, as I have said, appointing one or two scientists to the council so that they can seek to achieve this object properly.

To return to the hon. member for Carletonville, where he referred to the vast quantity of newsprint which we will use in future, I just want to inform the hon. member that I cannot give him any advice at the moment or tell him that he is right or wrong if he feels as he does, but as the Minister of Forestry I want to say at this stage that I do not think it is my duty to tell the newspapers that they have too many naked girls or too much this or that in the newspapers, and that for that reason they cannot have any more paper. That I cannot do. All that I can say is that both within and outside South Africa, paper is in future going to become very scarce in any case. Whether or not the hon. member says this today, when he and I are no longer there, it will in future be necessary in any case to consider how our paper may be utilized to best effect, for there will definitely not be enough paper for everyone in the world. But I also want to say this: That apart from the non-beneficial uses, according to the hon. member, there are also many other forms of wastage. I want to say to the hon. member that it is true that to reclaim 15% of one’s paper for reutilization is not enough. In South Africa we ought to push up this figure far beyond 15%. I believe this ought to be done, and that this will be done.

The hon. member for Benoni spoke for a long time about nature conservation. I want to tell the hon. member that he spoke to me in a rather different tone to the one he adopted yesterday, and I am very glad he did so.

He is improving.

Yes. I want to tell the hon. member that it is true that a very large portion of our rare plant species are faced by the threat of extinction. It is also true that in the process of afforestation damage was done, not now, but years ago. But the Department of Forestry has gone out of its way and has really done South Africa a great service during the past few years, precisely because of its nature conservation practices. Let me mention a few examples. May I inform the hon. member that long before we had a Department of Forestry or a forestry industry in South Africa, we had ancestors, and even those people who visited the Cape before our ancestors had already begun to exploit the Knysna forests. Great harm was done through the injudicious destruction of our primeval forests. We have only begun to realize this during the past few decades. It is only during the last 100 to 150 years that we began to take preventive steps, but up to that stage a great deal of harm had already been done. Today there is control, but to restore such a primeval forest, South Africa’s finest and best natural heritage, also requires a few hundred years. I want to tell the hon. member that we commenced this restoration a few years ago. We who are sitting here will not see the results of it. The works which is being done to encourage the trees in the natural complexes again, so that they will again become what they once were, will take many generations. But I think our children will be grateful that we warded off the threat which existed. On this occasion I now want to announce that we are aware that in the Southern Cape area there are some of the most beautiful forests, which are privately owned. It has come to my attention that people are destroying this wonderful heritage, their own private heritage. We cannot allow this, For that reason I want to say today that it has come to my attention that there are no fewer than 12 such farms, comprising a total surface area of 4 000 ha. I have instructed that they should in terms of the Act be proclaimed protected forests. We shall try to obtain the necessary funds to purchase them for the State. To prevent great damage being done before we are able to purchase the farms, and to prevent people from removing the timber injudiciously and in haste, I am in the meantime proclaiming the farms in order to freeze the position.

Where are these farms?

In the Southern Cape, beyond George and Knysna. There are various pieces. In other words, we regard these forests as a heritage, and we have to step in to protect them. I do not know the names of all these farm owners, nor does that really matter to me. After all, there is a principle at stake. Since these cases have been reported to me, I just want to say that I hope that we will be able to protect the forests in future. I also hope that we will in this way be able to supplement our own State-owned forests. I am sorry that things had to happen in this way, but according to the reports which I received, it seems to me there are people who could perhaps have been a little fonder of their country and their heritage. I am sorry to hear of the damage which has already been done in this regard. However, we shall try to save the forests for the future.

The hon. member for Benoni asked whether we would not also take care of animal life. He asked whether we had the necessary experts to do this. What I am now going to say, may perhaps be news to hon. members. Because we are so keen to have the Department of Forestry undertake this task as well, it has also been agreed that the Faculty of Forestry at Stellenbosch should include the subject “Nature conservation” in the prescribed course. The professor there is Professor Bigalke, who was attached to the Natal Parks Board. We want a more balanced approach. Because “balanced” is perhaps an ugly word, let me say instead that we want an addition to the course in order to promote the utilization of our natural resources in that way. When we consider such an ecological system, it is important that we also consider the animal life in that environment and not only the trees— the hon. member is right on this score— and therefore we want to restore our forests and preserve them with all their plant and animal life.

The hon. member for Ermelo referred here today to the wattle bark quotas. I am grateful to the hon. member for having done so. I know the hon. member for Ermelo is very interested in this question because it is a problem in his part of the world. The wattle bark growers have their own unique problems. I just want to say that I have great appreciation for the friendly words spoken by the hon. member in this regard, and also for the friendly words he addressed to the department. It is true that wattle bark quotas can be abused. To inform hon. members, I just want to say that when the wattle bark industry was established in South Africa in earlier years, everyone planted wattle trees right and left. Then there was a depression on the world market as a result of by-products which were used as substitutes for tannin. As a result of this depression an international agreement was then concluded, and South Africa was one of the participants. We use bark to produce tannin, but there are other countries which use quebracho to produce it, and there are other countries in Europe which use a variety of chestnut. All these countries together supply the world market with tannin. A quota agreement was then concluded. It is, however, understandable that on such a market the demand can increase and decrease. Since the market has been poor during the past few years, there were people who got cold feet and left the wattle bark industry. However, when a person possesses a quota to plant wattle trees, it is understandable that he will try to sell that quota to another person. From this an abuse arose. People who were no longer farming with wattle bark but who were in possession of these quotas, began to peddle them. The hon. member asked whether we could not look into this problem. I think the hon. member has a good point and is fundamentally correct. Personally I, too, feel that it should not be possible to peddle such an important thing as a quota. Instructions have already been given that the department should make a proper survey so that it may be established who the actual producers are. In this way this abuse can therefore be counteracted. How this problem is eventually going to be solved, I cannot say at the moment, but in principle I agree with the hon. member that we should investigate this entire matter of quotas. The hon. member also spoke a very timely and true word here today in regard to long-term contracts. The hon. member was correct when he said that the timber market a few years ago was a buyers’ market. There was not a great demand for timber. In the past few years, however, the awareness has begun to grow that we are going to have timber shortages. Everyone is now aware of the fact that this market is going to become a sellers’ market, in other words that there are going to be shortages. This is the first time in history that the forestry industry is going to experience shortages. There are many plantation owners who are now selling their forests by means of long-term contracts, or who are bartering them away in some other manner. The hon. member pointed out that people should not at this stage commit themselves for five or ten years because a major timber shortage is being foreseen in the near future. The hon. member is doing the right thing by urging individual farmers to join co-operatives instead, so that they can negotiate their own future jointly. The method of meeting this problem is for the timber producers to act in concert so that they can in future negotiate their position through the agency of their own co-operative. Just as the hon. member has done, I also want to give the producers this piece of good advice for the future.

I think I have already reacted to the standpoint of the hon. member for Rondebosch. I gained the impression that this hon. member takes a great interest in this industry. This industry is in fact a very important one, and I hope that we will hear more from the hon. member in future. The hon. member for Standerton pointed out the need for open-air recreational facilities, and asked what progress was being made in regard to the making available of open-air recreational resorts. The hon. member is not present here at the moment, so that I can reply to him, and I shall therefore proceed to reply to the hon. member for East London North. The member for East London North referred to the Hogs Back area, but since he is not here now, I cannot reply to him either.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn put questions in regard to the possibility of providing our children and the public with more information on nature reserves. The hon. member discussed the subject of open-air recreation and the utilization of our nature resorts. He asked whether it was not possible to have better information services in future. He asked whether the public could not also be involved and whether it could not lead to the establishment of a movement or an organization. I want to tell that hon. member that I am allergic to movements or organizations. I feel however that existing organizations will have to avail themselves of the opportunity and make use of the facilities which are being made available by the Department of Forestry.

I also want to mention schools which have in recent years come forward with their own plans for nature conservation, study and utilization. In the Transvaal, for example, the province decided that all Std. V children would spend one week a year in natural surroundings as part of their education in order to learn to know and identify with nature on those occasions. Therefore, the schools themselves are assisting in this major campaign to enable so many of the children who never, for example, have an opportunity and who grow up in urban areas, whose parents are perhaps not in a position to take them out, to learn to know nature in this way. Their chance of ever discovering nature would otherwise have been very slender. During the last short vacation a large number of schools in the Eastern Transvaal came together at a certain place, and the teachers were also present. They identified the trees in the vicinity, and learnt the history of the place. In this way they took the task of the school in this connection further. They established clubs in the schools, and did follow-up work over the weekends. They have been swept along in this entire movement of discovering and appreciating nature. If this could happen throughout South Africa, nature will for us become a different kind of possession than we have had up to now. We could then incorporate it in our daily lives. It then becomes a living thing. If we were able to do that, I think many organizations could do useful work in this regard. I would not like to see a body being established to implement this. If we want to claim South Africa for ourselves in this way, and utilize what is available in this way through our youth and other organizations, we would in fact be able to achieve what the hon. member advocated this afternoon. I hope that something will come of this in future, because we could in that way undertake a very successful programme to make our natural heritage available to South Africa. I have tried to reply to all the points raised by hon. members. I want to extend my sincere thanks for the debate which has been conducted. On this occasion, it is with a touch of sadness that I deal with a Vote here for the last occasion on which the Secretary, who stood by me for so long, is at my side. I want to wish him everything of the very best for the future on behalf of the Committee as well.

Votes agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Forecasts of the local demand and supply of timber indicate that a considerable expansion of the country’s total commercial plantation area is urgently required in order to meet the anticipated demand for timber at the end of the century. However, because of the long period of time that elapses between the planting and the harvesting of trees, the profitability of a forestry undertaking is much more unfavourably affected by the accumulation of compound interest than is the case with most other forms of land utilization. Consequently it has been clear that some form of incentive would be required for the private forestry sector to increase its rate of afforestation in order to make a larger contribution with a view to meeting the country’s ever-increasing timber requirements.

The inter-departmental committee which I appointed during 1969 to investigate and report on the necessity for supplying loans to timber-growers at low interest rates, has accordingly found that the long period of time which elapses between the capital expenditure and the realization of income from afforestation projects is exposing investment in the plantation industry to risks and consequently rendering it unattractive to the usual sources of finance. The committee has accordingly recommended that an adequate capital amount be made available from public funds every year for financing loans to existing and prospective timber-growers in order to bring about a reasonable increase in the country’s total commercial plantation area. This recommendation by the committee has been accepted and we have reached the stage where provision now exists for loans at low interest rates to be granted for the establishment or management of commercial timber plantations in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, as amended, on a basis similar to that applicable to soil conservation works. In terms of the provisions of section 15(1) of the said Act such loans will be subject to an interest rate of 5%. This interest rate is lower than the current interest rate on State loans, with the result that provision will have to be made for the adjustment of interest. The inter-departmental committee to which I have already referred has suggested that the adjustment of interest payable on these loans be financed from the levy, more specifically the levy on imported timber, collected in terms of the provisions of section 10G of the Forest Act, 1968, as amended, and paid into the Forestry Industry Fund established in terms of section 10H of this Act. The statutory Forestry Council has subsequently reflected on the matter and come to the conclusion that the Forestry Industry Fund will not have sufficient funds available to it to finance the adjustment of interest in addition to its many other important financial obligations in respect of research, training and promotional work. The council has accordingly recommended that an amount be voted by Parliament every year and paid into the Forestry Industry Fund for the redemption of interest adjustment. This aspect is still being considered. The Forestry Council has nevertheless recommended that levy funds be utilized for the adjustment of interest payable on afforestation loans for a period of one year.

The powers conferred upon the Forestry Council in terms of section 10D of the Forest Act, 1968, as amended, do not allow the Council to utilize funds for the adjustment of interest. Consequently, the Bill which is now before you is aimed at extending the powers of the Forestry Council in order to enable it to utilize moneys from the Forestry Industry Fund, from whichever source they have been obtained, even from the State, for the adjustment of interest, not only on loans granted in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, 1966, but also on afforestation loans granted by private financial institutions.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall not delay the House long in allowing this legislation to go through. This legislation is very much in line with the request that has been made by the whole of the forestry industry for many years, namely that low-cost loans should be made available to allow the planting of additional areas. This legislation is merely ironing out one or two of the anomalies and difficulties which have come up during the time this scheme has been in progress. We support the measure because it is very much in the interests of the national forestry industry. Certainly we are very pleased to see that this Bill has come before the House because it will enable farmers who wish to get loans to get them at a continuing rate of 5%. We believe that this is just about the only rate at which the members of our industry can undertake planting over a very long period. As I have said, we support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we welcome this legislation, particularly since it may expedite the scheme envisaged by the hon. the Minister. In terms of this scheme, State loans may be made available to timber-growers at subsidized interest rates. We have heard that the existing scheme, as administered by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, has not been found satisfactory by the farmers. Accordingly, it has not been utilized very extensively. I want to go so far as to say that the timber-growers of South Africa have been promised that an acceptable scheme would be established for them. For that reason I welcome this Bill, for it will enable the statutory Forestry Council to subsidize interest on loans. I want to request that the Forestry Council be enabled to acquire funds for the purpose of loans to farmers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister at once to consider appropriating funds for this purpose in the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support I am receiving from the other side. I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that it is the intention that in future, when this position has been changed, we shall be able to approach the State in this regard as well.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to point out briefly the reasons for the proposed amendments. The Water Act, 1956, contains no provision for the dises-etablishment of water boards established under the provisions of this Act. It is necessary for such provision to be made, and clause 1 of the Bill deals with this.

As far as clauses 2 to 5 are concerned, it is being deemed desirable, in view of the activities, powers and duties of water boards, as well as the problems being experienced by water boards at the moment in recruiting suitable staff with the required qualifications, that the chairmen and vice-chairmen of water boards be designated by the Minister of Water Affairs and that they should be remunerated for their more extensive services.

For the same reasons it is also being deemed necessary for the Minister to be able to determine the remuneration of officials and employees of water boards without consultation with the Public Service Commission. From the nature of the case water boards are bodies which act outside the scope of the statutory provisions regulating conditions of service for employees of the State.

Mr. Speaker, for many years it has been a custom in this House that legislation dealing with water affairs, because it affects the interests of so many people, should go to a Select Committee. We on our side have appreciated the fact that this custom has been followed these many years. The hon. the Minister approached us earlier this session and asked that this Bill should not go to a Select Committee for the very obvious reason that it is a small Bill that affects no vital rights of people. We are very pleased to acquiesce in this request. However, we ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that in the case of further amendments to the Water Act we will attempt to reach agreement on the old basis, that a Select Committee should be appointed to consider legislation dealing with water affairs when the rights of people are affected.

There is one query that we do have in regard to this particular piece of legislation. The hon. the Minister quite rightly stated that there is no provision for the disestablishment of a water board. This appears to be a curious anomaly. Although the hon. the Minister has the power to appoint boards and regulate their operations and so forth, there is no provision for disestablishment. I should like the hon. the Minister in his reply to tell us what has been the procedure up to the present. I seem to remember every now and again seeing in the Gazette that a particular board had either been altered or something had happened to it. I am almost sure that I have seen that boards have been disestablished in the past. The problem that we had with this was when we were discussing the problem of the Umgeni Water Board under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. We asked whether the appointment of this board was not going to necessitate the disestablishment of one or other of those bodies that had been set up under a provincial ordinance. For instance, there was the Pinetown Regional Water Supply Corporation. It might have been necessary, because of the water board which is now going to take over that area, for a body such as this to have been disestablished in order to allow that board to function. I am not sure whether this fact is at all relevant to the matter we are discussing now. I would welcome an assurance from the hon. the Minister that it is in fact not his intention to disestablish a regional water supply corporation in order to allow the water board which he has established to function. If he can give us this assurance it would set our minds and the minds of a large number of other people at rest. We should like to know whether it is possible for him at this stage to explain in detail the workings as he sees them of that board which he has established in relation to the already established institutions. We would welcome this very much indeed when he replies to the Second Reading debate.

The provisions of clause 4 which provides for the ability to appoint engineers and technical officers and other people outside of the rules and regulations of the Public Service Commission, are provisions we welcome. This is a tendency that is appearing more and more in regard to technical staff—people who are extraordinarily difficult to come by and to keep in the service of the department. We believe that this is something which will become the pattern of things more and more. We think that the attempt to correlate members of the civil service in different departments rendering different kinds of service has been an inhibiting factor, particularly in regard to this department which depends to such a large extent on engineers and technical personnel. We welcome these provisions and we will support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we want to express our appreciation to the Opposition for having promised to give this Bill their blessing. From this side of the House we, too, want to bring the hon. the Minister our support for and congratulations on this amendment Bill. This Bill provides for more orderly water management and water control. The fact that the hon. the Minister will appoint the chairman from now on is very important. We know that the post of chairman is a very, very important post. The fact that the hon. the Minister will appoint this person from now on is to us the necessary guarantee that it will be a knowledgeable, responsible and competent person. In the same way as the hon. the Minister has streamlined the department and turned it into a show department since he became Minister of Water Affairs, so too, in introducing this Bill, he is mailing an even further contribution to ordering and developing the Department of Water Affairs to an even greater extent. We thank him sincerely.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Mooi River. The hon. member asked me what happened in the cases where we had to have a disestablishment of water boards. There was only one case, which was in a way a fortunate case, and that was the case of Sasolburg, next to the Rand water board. When this problem cropped up, they found that it was possible to incorporate Sasolburg in the Rand water board area, but if Sasolburg had been a couple of hundred miles away it would have been difficult. That is the only case of which I am aware. If there were other similar boards, they would have been dormant and there would have been no need to disesestablish them. But I think it is wise to have this provision in the Bill, because you cannot make provision in a Bill for the establishment of a body without at the same time also making provision for its disestablishment. We are simply removing an anomaly here which existed in the past.

Sir, the hon. gentleman asked me what the position would be in Durban, where we are going to have the Umgeni water board. We are making provision here for a central authority which can supply water either to local authorities or to authorities such as the water corporation in Natal. Even a water corporation could buy water from this central authority. You would then have one authority to supply water in bulk over a large area. This is a development which should have taken place many years ago, but if we do not make provision for this now we will be running into great problems in the future because it may become more and more difficult to get all the bodies concerned together. This is the right time, therefore, to establish this sort of body, which will be run on the same lines as other water boards in South Africa. In most cases a water board is established at the beginning of a development project, but in this case in Durban it is a question of establishing a water board at, shall we say, the end of the development. I personally am sorry that we did not hit upon the idea many years ago of having a water board in the Durban area, because I know that there has been a controversy between Durban and Pinetown and the adjacent areas, controversy which I think could have been avoided.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, a moment ago in the reply of the hon. the Minister to the Second Reading debate on this Bill, he indicated that it was not his intention in terms of this clause to disestablish the Pinetown regional water services corporation. Sir, I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to a report which appeared in the Highway Mail on 6 September under a banner headline reading: “Shock Water Board law.” It then reads—

It goes on to read—

I am very glad to have the hon. the Minister’s assurance that it is not his intention to disestablish this particular corporation. But, Sir, I was a little bit perturbed at the other comments which he made regarding the newly established Umgeni water board, which I presume could be disestablished under this particular section. If I understood the hon. the Minister correctly, this board is now going to supply water to all the authorities in that area, including the Pinetown regional water services corporation and also Durban. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the effect is going to be on Durban. As he knows, the Durban corporation has certain rights to water from the Umgeni River, and if my facts are right, the Durban corporation did in fact build a dam on the Umgeni River and established certain water reticulation services at its own expense. Sir, how is the establishment of this Umgeni water board going to affect the rights of Durban?

As for the Natal water corporation, those corporations are being established …

The Pinetown water corporation?

I say there are different water corporations in Natal established under the province, and we must not confuse those corporations with water boards. Water boards under the Act are something quite different.

Then this legislation has nothing to do with that corporation?

No. It has nothing to do with those corporations. Those corporations could even be incorporated under the water board if they so wished. That is the point. We have had lengthy discussions with all the authorities in Natal about this. As I see it, when this water board has been established, it will then be for the different authorities, through this water board, to solve their problems. So I cannot say now how all of them will react in future. It is not my intention to do so. The object is to have an authority which will for future development be in a position to finance and co-ordinate all development. That is what the intention of this water board is. I say that if we do not have this co-ordination now, how much more difficult will it be in 10 years’ or 20 years’ time to have that co-ordination? It may be quite impossible. You know, people come to me. I have spoken to the Durban people, and to the Pinetown people, and to other people, and all those authorities do have a case. But the point is that if we allow development to go on and on without supplying them with an authority to co-ordinate all the different authorities in the area, there would be difficulty. What we want to do through this water board is timeously to establish an authority at this stage to do the co-ordination. Otherwise the Department of Water Affairs will have to step in. I can see us doing it up to a point, but I cannot see us keeping on with this sort of thing. I must say that I am very pleased to be able to state that we had these lengthy discussions and I thought that it would not be possible to get all the authorities to agree with us, but they did agree with us and I am very glad of it. If they had not agreed, I would not have come forward with this idea of a water board because I do not want to force it on anybody. It must be an organization to which they all willingly belong, otherwise we will have problems.

Are Durban’s water rights not affected?

No, we are not taking anything away from another. What we are doing now is to establish a board, and this board will have the authority to see to all the problems. We are not going to deprive anyone of his rights. If the board wants to conduct negotiations with Durban, it can do so, and they can come to an agreement with each other. It is not for the Minister to say what they should do. All we are saying now is that we should have an authority to co-ordinate these matters, because developments are simply taking place all the time, and later on one will have to deal with such an extensive area that one will not be able to co-ordinate things at all.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Wattle Bark Industry Act, 1960, provides, inter alia, that when the Minister of Forestry is satisfied that, certain associations in the wattle industry are sufficiently representative of wattle growers, wattle extract manufacturers and wattle bark millers, respectively, he may request such associations to enter into a mutual agreement. When the parties are unable to come to a voluntary agreement, the Minister of Forestry is charged with making a determination which shall be binding on all parties.

Such an agreement or determination must, inter alia, provide for the determination of producers’ prices, the regulation of bark production, the marketing of wattle bark and extract, and the imposition and the spending of levies. The agreement or determination shall also provide for the establishment of a board which has to carry out the said functions and administer the agreement.

In 1962 a determination (better known as the Agreement) was entered into by three associations which had been in existence since the thirties, namely the South African Wattle Growers’ Union, the South African Wattle Extract Manufacturers’ Association and the South African Wattle Bark Millers’ and Exporters’ Association.

Practice has shown that with a view to easier and more effective administration it is necessary to extend those matters which have to be provided for in an agreement or determination, especially with regard to the requirements relating to representation on the Wattle Bark Industry Board, the election or nomination of alternates and the appointment of a deputy chairman of this board. At the same time a number of textual improvements are envisaged in order that certain matters may more fully, more clearly and beyond all doubt be brought into line with the original intention.

The Bill before the House seeks to give effect to this, but also contains two further principles, namely to provide for the appointment of further committees of the Wattle Bark Industry Board because the need for such committees have, with a view to better administration, been identified clearly.

At the moment the Act only provides for the appointment of one committee of the Wattle Bark Industry Board, namely the marketing committee, to which certain autonomous powers are granted.

In the second place, the Bill provides for the granting of corporate rights—this is important—to the present Wattle Bark Industry Board, its marketing committee and one of its constituent bodies, i.e. the South African Wattle Growers’ Union, as well as to any Wattle Bark Industry Board or marketing committee which may be established in terms of any future agreement or determination. From the nature of their functions these bodies have to handle large amounts of money, which are collected by way of levies, as well as perform other acts necessitating their having to be a body corporate. In fact, in the past they acted in good faith and as if they did have that status. By way of this statutory amendment a position will be rectified which has been deemed to have been in existence since the establishment of the body, and the situation will be reached where the bodies will have the necessary corporate rights to perform all the acts they may deem to be necessary in the interests of the wattle industry, also in connection with the export contract.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which has the full support of this side of the House and of the entire wattle industry. With the increasing responsibilities that are being thrust upon the Wattle Growers’ Union, and the increasing activities it is undertaking, it is essential that this corporate status, which is being introduced by this Bill, should be acquired. I can give the assurance that the wattle industry, and the members of the Wattle Growers’ Union, will heave a great sigh of relief when this Bill has been passed by Parliament. I have received telegrams from more than a few members asking us to give the Bill our fullest support and to see that it goes through the House with the minimum of difficulty. I can therefore assure the hon. the Minister that we support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also welcome the contents of this Bill. There is such a complete revival as far as the wattle bark industry is concerned that I think legislation of this nature is very timeous. I think that it is also correct that the legislation should be streamlined more so as to adapt to prevailing circumstances, especially with a view to promoting, inter alia, the planting and establishment of further wattle bark plantations. If this were not the case, we could be heading for a shortage which might develop and which we should like to prevent.

As the hon. member for Mooi River pointed out, this measure has the wholehearted support of all the organizations concerned with the industry. It does not only have their support, but at this stage it is also being welcomed heartily by the organizations concerned. In connection with the granting of corporate rights to the various organizations concerned here, i.e. the board, the marketing committee which is being established in terms of this measure, as well as the Wattle Growers’ Union, I think this is extremely necessary for the proper performance of the activities entrusted to these bodies by the Act and by agreement. It is necessary in other respects too, e.g. to retain good control in respect of this industry. In this way it can also exercise control over the excess of interests, which is different in the case of a company where, in tum, one has to do with an excess of shareholders. This measure will also ensure better bargaining for the industry, especially because of the fact that when one has to do with the board and the bodies resulting from it, one has to do with a bona fide body of growers and farmers who are involved in the matter and not with a profit-making company. For that reason I wholeheartedly support this Bill and regard it as excellent legislation for the advancement of the industry as such.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support this Bill has received, but, to tell the truth, I expected it. I think that at this moment this measure is of specific importance to the industry. I am pleased about the cooperation of hon. members on both sides of the House.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) In line 5, to omit “White”.

I do not want to discuss this amendment at any length. Nor do I intend to seek drama or sensation in any way in regard to this matter. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am not in any way questioning his bona fides here. However, I find it to be a practical problem that in clause 1 (i), the Bill should read as follows—

I just want to ask that the word “White” be deleted here. I do not think the amendment contains an imputation that the Minister had any sinister intentions in regard to this particular definition, but I do think that it creates enormous problems, particularly abroad, and this goes for people who are perhaps unable to understand what is involved here and who will not, perhaps, understand what the set-up is in the administration of our country, namely that we have various departments dealing with these various matters. In addition, it immediately raises the question of what the available services would be for those not qualifying in terms of this Act. It also gives rise to all kinds of problems and questions. Because this Bill deals with a very deserving matter, I should appreciate it if we could delete this particular word in the definition.

Order! I am unable to accept the first amendment moved by the hon. member as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill to persons not contemplated by the Bill as read a Second Time. However, the hon. member may move the second amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in that case I move as an amendment—

1. (2) To add at the end of definition (xviii) “but does not include training, care, speech or other therapy, services and amenities which may be given either by a parent of such child, or by any other person at the request of a parent of such child”.

My second amendment is a definition which really refers to clause 36. It is a problem to which we referred in the Second Reading debate and which I am trying to avoid by amending the definition of “training”, I think that clause 36 is very restrictive. The clause reads very clearly—

It is a fact that in many cases, where there are families with mentally retarded children, they are nevertheless provided with training other than in an institution as provided for in this Bill. It is for this kind of training that I want to make provision by amending the definition in clause 1 (xviii). I am aware of the proposals contained in clause 36 but in my opinion the problem is not entirely solved thereby. It is true that there are cases abroad, and England is one of the countries concerned, where mentally retarded children are provided with so-called training at institutions, whereas that training could not qualify as being of any use or value at all. In a certain sense that amounts to an offence. I can understand that it is the intention of clause 36 to avoid anything of the kind. At the same time, however, one should make provision for the possibility of a parent living in a far-distant place, or a parent who wants to make use of paramedical services, being able to do so without being affected by clause 36. For that reason I want to ask that my amendment with regard to the definition of “training” be adopted by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

To begin with I want to say that I am moving this amendment because the very persons who are concerned with this training feel strongly about the use of the term “uneducability”. For example, I have before me a memorandum by the S.A. National Council for Mental Health, Division for the Mentally Retarded. I want to quote to hon. members an excerpt from it—

It is of course a paradox to say that a person is uneducable whereas one is, in fact, going to give him training. As I have already said, provision is, in fact, made for the possibility that the person concerned will eventually be exempted from this training.

Without becoming involved in an argument again, I want to quote to hon. members what was said about these terms in the report of the Van Wyk Commission. I refer to a quotation in this report concerning The World Health Organization—

In other words, this is something about which the persons concerned feel very strongly.

Another source from which I want to quote and which could serve as the motivation for this amendment is the British Education of Handicapped Children Act (1970). This Bill did succeed in not using the term “uneducability”. For example, they state as follows—

That is the closest this Act comes to a reference to educability at a school. The term “uneducable” is nowhere used in this legislation. I again want to quote to hon. members from the British Act where they speak about “local health authorities”—

For the mentioned reasons I move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, before I reply in detail to the arguments advanced here, I should like to make a few general remarks arising out of the amendments.

In the first place I want to say that I have studied with care, the discussion that took place during the Second Reading debate of this Bill, and the amendments before us, and that I am convinced of the good faith of all the hon. members who have taken part in the debate. I am very grateful that there is no difference in principle as regards this Bill, but only what really amounts to a difference in the interpretation of concepts and procedures. I should like hon. members, when discussing the amendments before us, to bear in mind that we are dealing here with an education department that approaches matters from a pedagogic point of view and proposes to lay down certain provisions that are pedagogically well-grounded. I now come to the amendments before us, amendments having regard to certain definitions. I want to ask hon. members that since we are dealing with a delicate matter here, we should not become emotional about definitions in legislation.

As far as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central is concerned, it is clear to me that his proposal limits the definition of uneducability to “severely impaired intellectual and social development”. However this is not the only criterion that can be used. Our view of this matter is that a far wider scope is involved here. We want to take other characteristics into consideration too, for example, medical, physical, motor and sensory aspects as well as speech and language which all, jointly and severally, play a very important role when one has to pass judgment. The hon. member referred to the paradox that would arise. I want to concede that we experienced a great many problems in compiling the Bill concerning this very point which he has called a paradox, namely that although one can say that a person should not be subject to compulsory education, one can nevertheless train him in terms of other legislation. This is also the reason why we did not include this service in the Educational Services Act. The finding of the legal advisers was that we should submit separate legislation to provide for these children.

The term “uneducable” is a comprehensive term that really refers to a specific category of children, namely those children who, owing to their retardedness are unable to benefit from ordinary education and must therefore be exempted from compulsory education in terms of the education ordinances of the provinces. We also have difficulty with the Afrikaans and the English definitions. The English term “uneducable” has regard to education and/or training while the Afrikaans term “onopvoedbaar” is used for want of a better word. In English literature these children are referred to as “uneducable but trainable” while here in South Africa we generally accept the term “onopvoedbaar” in the wider sense that I have just tried to explain. Having heard this explanation I think that the hon. member for Durban Central will understand why we chose this term. I could also add that the term “onopvoedbaar” is used in the education ordinances of certain provinces and that it has not given rise to any problems of which I am aware.

As far as the amendment by the hon. member for Rondebosch is concerned, I want to point out to him that clause 34 provides for the registration of private training centres. I want to state very clearly that it is the aim of the Bill that we want all centres and individuals concerned with work of this kind to be registered, for obvious reasons. We must know who the people are who are concerned with this work. We do not want to interfere unnecessarily with what they are doing, but we want to know who they are in order that we may exercise control over what they do. Although I hesitate to say this in this hon. House, I do want to mention that there are cases known to us of parents who, out of desperation, have simply locked up such children in a small enclosure together with a few pets and cared for them in that way. We want to try to prevent that kind of care. Clause 34, therefore, makes provision for a parent who chooses to have his child at home with him and care for and train him himself, to be able to do so. This also answers the question raised by the hon. member for Durban Central in his Second Reading speech when he referred to the case of the nun who had a few children to care for and train. It will therefore be possible for a parent who is capable of training and caring for his child or children himself, or who wants to get someone to do it for him, to register with us and continue with that task in total privacy in his home, or wherever and to provide all these services which the hon. member for Rondebosch asks for. The only difference between us is that my department wants to know about it. Such a parent must register with us in order that we may exercise control over what is being done. After listening to this explanation I think the hon. member will also understand why this amendment which he proposed is not really necessary because we have already provided for this possibility.

Mr. Chairman, there is just one point that worries me. The hon. the Minister has said that this can be dealt with under clause 34. We have an amendment to clause 34 to cover this particular point. We will deal with it later. Clause 34 deals with the definition of a centre and a centre is described in clause 2(1) of the Bill. It is stated to be an institution which is maintained, managed and financed out of moneys from the Treasury. A home would not be financed. If the hon. the Minister would indicate to us that he will deal with what is necessary in this regard under clause 34, then there will be no need to protract the discussions at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. member for Green Point that clause 34 deals with three categories. The one is a State centre, i.e. a centre connected with institutions attached to the Department of Health in which up to now they have cared for people falling into this category. There are also State-aided centres and then, of course, there are the private centres. In other words, a parent who wants to care for and train his child himself, will be able to register with us. We would then regard that parent as a private centre. He would therefore be able to continue with his task and this is what the hon. member for Rondebosch really wants.

Mr. Chairman, I take it that the hon. the Minister and I agree in this respect. The difficulty is only a question of a point of law, the interpretation of what is really a “centre”. In terms of the provisions of clause 2(1) a centre is described as an institution subsidized by the Treasury. Perhaps we could discuss the matter under clause 34.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to state clearly that it is really a State centre.

Mr. Chairman, this clause 4 to which the hon. the Minister referred …

Order! I just want to warn the hon. member that we are now dealing with clause 1. He must not therefore conduct too wide a discussion on clause 34.

The reason furnished by the hon. the Minister for not accepting the amendment, is that it is covered by the provisions of clause 34. As it stands here, mention is made of private training centres and also of the conditions. Possibly the hon. the Minister made a mistake. The amendment by the hon. member for Rondebosch only refers to a person. Does the hon. the Minister not think that if we could insert in that amendment “a person approved by the Secretary”, it would solve the hon. the Minister’s problem in regard to parents who kept the children in an enclosure? That kind of parent will certainly not be approved by the Minister. The hon. the Minister would be well advised to have another look at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch and, at another stage or in the Other Place, to insert the words “a parent who, on application to the Minister’s Secretary, has received authorization” where reference is made to “parent”. Then there should be no doubt in this regard.

Sir, to my mind there is no doubt that the Bill as it is worded at present does in fact cover the situation mentioned by the hon. member.

Sir, in the Second Reading debate the hon. member for Potchefstroom pointed out that in line 26, clause 1, the term “mentally retarded child” is used. The hon. the Minister has already explained that the term “mentally retarded” was frequently used in the Van Wyk report and he feels that we should let the term used in the Van Wyk report, suffice. However, Sir, I feel very strongly in regard to this matter and I should like to repeat my plea to the hon. the Minister that he should give favourable consideration to changing “mentally retarded” to “mentally handicapped”. Sir, the word “retarded” has become a term of abuse. In everyday language the word “retarded” really has a very derogatory meaning. One finds that when one child wants to disparage another, he tells him: “Oh really, you are retarded.” Sir, because this is so and because the word “retarded”, in my opinion, has a very negative connotation, I wondered whether the hon. the Minister would not give favourable consideration to using “mentally handicapped” here instead of “mentally retarded”.

Mr. Chairman, I have already pointed out in the Second Reading debate that the Van Wyk Committee had to contend, inter alia, with the problem of terminology, because a wide variety of nuances of meaning are involved here. Some are easier to define in English and others in Afrikaans, but it was a very difficult task to find a system of definitions that will comply with all the requirements. In addition we had to contend with the legal advisers’ problems in regard to the drafting of the Bill and then too, of course, we had the check by the Language Service Bureau, of course, which deals with language matters in the Public Service. Having taken all these factors into account, we decided on the terms that are at present used in this Bill. If we were to make a change now, the hon. member would find that we should have to make amendments throughout the entire Bill and then of course we should have to sit here for a very long time, although time, of course, should not be the major consideration. I am convinced that the unfavourable connotation which, according to the hon. member, attaches to this word, is not as bad as the impression one perhaps gets when one sees it before one in print, because clearly, this is one of the cases to which I referred when I said that we should not become emotional about definitions we see in our legislation. We are in fact dealing with a delicate matter here, and for that reason too I do not feel justified in effecting any change in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I listened very attentively to the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to my amendment, but I really do not feel very happy about it, because as I understand the hon. the Minister’s explanation, it means, in fact, that when this Bill becomes law, every parent with a mentally retarded child, or the family of the child, will be under an obligation to have the child registered and to give notice to the Minister that this is the case. Sir, this intimately affects the parent/child relationship. It is this same troublesome problem that I want to avoid by means of my amendment. I want to argue that there are in fact cases where the parents care for these children with the greatest love and concern, and that if this should be to the benefit of the child, the parent should in fact be free to do this. In the nature of the matter I agree with the hon. the Minister that if maltreatment of these children occurs, there are in any case legal measures to enable one to deal with these people. It is precisely because I am trying to provide for both these contingencies, that I move this amendment. In my opinion we should not provide legislatively that parents who do not report to the Minister that their child is mentally retarded, can be prosecuted in terms of clause 36(a); to me this does not look like a good piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the hon. member and I want to put the matter to him like this. In most cases parents who have a mentally retarded child do not know what they can do for the child because they are not experts. By means of this legislation we are creating for them the possibility of sending such a child to a training centre of this nature. But it could happen, as the hon. member said, that there are parents who are in fact qualified to care for such a child themselves, by virtue of their own background or study, or whose financial circumstances are such that they are able to employ someone to do it for them. This, too, I concede. In other words, it is clear that a parent who sends his child to one of our centres does not register. He need not register, because he is sending his child to the centre and there is no difficulty. A parent who wants to undertake the task himself at home or have it done on his behalf, must register, in order that he may enjoy, inter alia, the benefit of all the expert advice we are able to provide. He may think that he is doing the best for his child and he may employ someone who professes to be an expert, but who need not necessarily be one. If he has registered, he participates in all the benefits of our training programme and the inspection we should undertake. In fact we could be of assistance to him quite apart from the work which he himself could do or could have done by a qualified person. I therefore think that the hon. member must accept that it is imperative that if one is to place this matter on a sound basis, one must establish the centres and also give the parents who want to perform this task themselves, the right to do so, but they must register in order to be subject to some degree of control so that justice may be done to these children. It is my department’s aim to see justice done in respect of these children, who have not always been justly treated in the past.

Amendments negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move as an amendment—

It is our contention that the subject is covered by subsection (3)(a)(ii). Subsection (3)(a) provides that an officer or employee may be seconded temporarily to the service of another person. We on this side of the House feel that the phrase “any other person” must include the heads of the departments as stated in (3)(a)(i). Should the hon. the Minister agree with this interpretation, this would protect the employee’s individual right in that he must give his consent, and it would mean that you could safety remove (3)(a)(i). If the hon. the Minister does not agree with this interpretation, it means that an employee can be seconded without his consent in terms of (3)(a)(i). He therefore has no security in his position. He must suffer the domestic upheaval of such secondment, and finally this would be a deterrent for people to join the staff of training centres. We therefore feel that, linked with the previous clause in terms of which such a person will not have the benefit of an increased salary despite the increased responsibility, there is very little benefit for a person to join a teaching staff should this clause remain unamended.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

The effect of this subsection is that a person may be transferred to a higher post without being entitled to the higher salary applicable to that post. This system of transfer can easily be abused. Sometimes a transfer is regarded as being of a temporary nature, but experience has shown that some of the education departments and even Government departments are inclined to make transfers initially regarded as being of a temporary nature permanent at a later stage. It can very easily happen that a person is forgotten in a post in which he has accepted more responsibility without receiving the salary attached to the higher post, for the position is that he is not, by reason only of that transfer, entitled to the salary attached to the higher post. Clause 8(1) makes adequate provision for transfers, and in addition we also have the provisions of subsection (3)(a)(ii) of this clause, in which mention is made of the fact that the person concerned may be transferred with his own consent. Therefore we cannot see any reason for the existence of clause 8(2), unless it can be provided in it, if possible, that when a person is transferred to a higher post, he will immediately be entitled to the higher salary.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendments which have been moved. With due respect to him, I do not think that the hon. the Minister has applied his mind properly to this clause. Does he realize that with this clause firstly we are immediately departing from the principle of the rate for the job? If a person is required to do a job of work and if he is going to do that job properly which is in a higher grade, then he must be compensated accordingly. That is basically what one will expect to happen. If he has been put into that job and he is not fully competent of doing it, the Minister is making a mistake in making that transfer. He is taking a man who is not capable of doing the job and allowing him to do it. Whether it is temporary or permanent does not come into it, but if he is capable of doing the job, whether it is temporary or permanent, he must be paid for it at the higher rate. Just imagine if the hon. the Minister himself was going to be transferred from one place to another to do a higher job of work at the same salary as the lower grade. He is probably going to do it against his will and even the temporary part of the transfer becomes very important. There is no indication here as to what the transfer means. This is not a provincial matter but a national matter. He may be stationed in Cape Town and may be transferred to Bloemfontein. He has to have a home wherever he goes, and whether it is for himself or his family, it will involve higher costs for him. He will have to find the money somewhere to pay for the two homes. If he takes his family with him it will mean additional costs. It will mean new surroundings for them and may involve additional expenses to transport his children to a new school. The upheaval caused by transferring children from one place to another has already been mentioned. He will then have to look for lodgings and for the first month or two before he finds a home, he and his family may have to stay in a hotel. Why should such a man not be compensated for this? As I see it, the man who is going to be transferred is a man from a lower rank who is advancing to a higher rank and who therefore should have the ability to do the job. My contention is that he should be paid on the same basis as the man doing the job in a higher grade. In any case, he is a specialist in that particular type of work already. I see no reason for the hon. the Minister not to include the amendment in the clause.

Mr. Chairman, I honestly cannot see how the hon. the Minister can accept this amendment. The whole idea of this legislation is to try to provide better training to mentally retarded children. In this whole process I still think our premise is that if that better training is viable, we also want to create new spheres of labour for them at the same time, so that they may also become economically active through the abilities they have. In other words, what one has in mind here is, for instance, that the department or a specific centre wants to conduct negotiations with, for argument’s sake, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications with regard to a certain unskilled job which we know from experience the children can eventually do in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications itself. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications may be prepared to undertake such an experiment, but may at the same time point out that this is foreign ground to them. They may then ask that one of the specialized people from the department be made available to them for only three or four weeks to guide these children in a specific direction in the new environment we are trying to create for them. Now it is of no use for us to go as far as the hon. member for Rosettenville did, and to see in this Bill a process in terms of which people will have to find lodgings for a period of two months just for the sake of a special task that may be entrusted to them. He foresees that people will be sent across the length and breadth of the country to go and perform certain tasks. I do not think this is the idea at all. That is why specific departments are also being mentioned in this clause, such as Posts and Telecommunications, the Railways and Harbours, etc., which may probably be fields for profitable action in respect of these children. I do not think we should harbour unnecessary fears in this regard. Subsection (3)(a)(ii) provides that he may be seconded with his own consent If any homeland government, for instance, wanted to start a training programme for their children in this regard, it would only be fair for the department, or the Minister, if you wish, to refrain from transferring a person without his own consent, because this could cause that hardship of which the hon. member for Rosettenville is so afraid. I do not think we should insist too much on making specific provision for a higher salary when in the case of a person filling a post of a higher grade temporarily. There will probably be no scale for that post, because this department only wants a little guidance in this regard for a transitional stage. If we do this, we shall also make the legislation unpractical in this regard.

I would just like to say, in response to the hon. member for Tygervallei, that he is rather confused about the position. The salary restriction— that is, that an officer need not necessarily receive the higher grade salary—for which provision is made here is for the case of the transferred officer, not of a temporary secondment. Subsection (2) makes provision for “an officer or an employee who has been transferred”. That is what causes the hon. member for Rosettenville concern. The hon. member for Tygervallei has not studied the Bill. It has nothing to do with the Post Office. The Post Office is only concerned with temporary secondments. We are concerned with transfers in this instance. I think the argument of the hon. member for Rosettenville is a perfectly valid one, that where mention is made of a transfer, it is a permanent one. If such a person then has to fill a higher grade post, I believe he should receive the payment which appertains to that grade.

As regards the second amendment, which asks for the deletion of subsection (3)(a) (i), we are simply concerned that the provision is for the secondment of an officer or employee—

In these instances, the officer or employee is immediately removed from the control of the Public Service Commission. Once he goes into those sections of administration, he comes under a different control as far as work, working hours and even salaries are concerned. That is what worries me in regard to the question of a temporary secondment, in which case no consent is required.

There is another point which is important and which has already been stressed. I know the hon. the Minister is deeply anxious that this work should be in the hands of specially qualified people. Can one visualize that you are going to remove from a training centre highly qualified people and specialist training staff to second them to a position in the Railways and Harbours Administration? I can see the point the hon. member for Tygervallei has mentioned. It could be that one, two or three of these retarded children have had training, have developed and have been found some employment where they still need the assistance of a staff member of one of these training centres. However, I believe that that is a very rare matter. As far as the employee or officer is concerned, he would find himself in an entirely new environment, if those transfers are to take place. His conditions of employment may not be the same when there is a different controlling body, and the transfer should then at least take place with the consent of the officer concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I find it rather interesting, I can almost say remarkable, that two hon. members from Natal have raised this matter of the transfer and secondment of teachers in this hon. House, and that an hon. member from the Transvaal has unwittingly put his foot into it. I refer to the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member for Green Point is quite correct: We are here dealing with two amendments which concern two completely different aspects. The amendment by the hon. member for Durban Central concerns the question of the transfer of officers. Over against that the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North deals with the question of secondment. I want to say immediately that the hon. member for Tygervallei put forward a good argument in respect of the second amendment, to show why it is necessary for us to make our people available to other public bodies to go and perform this task on a temporary basis. I think the hon. member for Green Point overlooked the fact that these people can be seconded temporarily. He raised the question of the control of these officers. I want to tell him that the officers who are temporarily seconded remain under the control of the department. As far as their salaries are concerned, they are being provided for in subsection (3)(b). My department remains the department which exercises control over this officer. He is temporarily seconded to either the Railways or another Government department to be of assistance to them in organizing a comparable endeavour on behalf of these children. I do not think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North understood this matter quite correctly. If we accepted his amendment, it would mean that all these bodies would be deprived of the privilege of organizing a comparable service for the children for whom they are responsible. I think that this point will be clearer to the hon. member after my explanation, and that he will therefore understand why I cannot accept his amendment.

I should like to come to the amendment by the hon. member for Durban Central, which deals with the transfer of officers. I want to stress that the only thing that is relevant here is the claim which such an officer will have to the higher salary which may be attached to that post. I want to tell the hon. member that this is a principle which applies throughout the Public Service and causes no problems whatsoever. When someone is transferred to a post, he is not entitled to a higher salary by reason of the transfer only. This does not apply anywhere in the Public Service. This does not apply anywhere in the education service. Then I also want to tell the hon. member for Rosettenville that one of my tasks as Minister of National Education is, inter alia, to co-ordinate the conditions of employment of staff. This is an extremely difficult matter because such wide diversity exists. In the light of this, therefore, the hon. member will also understand why I model the conditions of employment of the officers who will be working at these centres on the lines of those applying elsewhere in the education service. Therefore the hon. member for Durban Central will accept that while, in terms of subsection (1), a protective attitude is adopted towards the man who is transferred to a post lower than the one to which he was appointed, there is also no discrimination against other people who are eligible for such a post. The person who has been transferred to that post, is obviously not excluded from being appointed to that post. The only thing we want to lay down here is that he is not entitled to to the higher salary by reason of the transfer only.

For that reason I cannot accept either of the two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister what the position would be if a man were transferred from one post to another and he refused the transfer? What will happen if he says to the Minister that he refuses to transfer to that place because it is going to cost him a considerable amount should he accept it, but that he will be prepared to accept it if he is compensated for it? What will be that man’s position? Will he be allowed to stay where he is or will he be removed from his post?

The hon. member for Rosettenville can very profitably put this question to his colleagues from Natal. He can ask them how Natal does it. But since the hon. member has asked me this question, I want to tell him how we set to work, and I am sure he will accept that we adopt a very reasonable attitude. When an officer in the education service is transferred and he refuses for reasons of his own, it will, strictly in the letter of the law, be possible to charge him with misconduct. However, I can assure the hon. member that we do not set to work in that manner. We negotiate with the person and try to establish whether he is experiencing problems, what his problems are, whether those problems are well-founded and whether he cannot cope with those problems. In this way the matter is always settled amicably.

When I spoke a moment ago, I omitted to refer to the other points raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville, viz. the question of transport and accommodation and matters of that nature. It goes without saying that such a person who is transferred is compensated for such additional expenditure. As far as the transfer itself is concerned, we do in fact settle these matters amicably, and I can satisfy the hon. House of Assembly that we experienced no problems in this regard in the past.

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides that an officer or an employee can be transferred by the department to a post of higher grade than the grade to which his rank is appropriate. He is then entrusted with the responsibilities and duties attached to a post of higher grade but he is not entitled to a commensurate salary.

Quite right.

Surely that is not just? The man must be paid for the job he is doing.

He is a specialist too.

However, every time when in connection with some legislation we point out that something is unjust, the Government says—it is a habit of theirs—“You must leave it to us to accommodate these people in some other way when we administer the law. We never prosecute a teacher or have him up for misconduct.” It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to give us that assurance, but what happens when somebody in charge of discipline in his department says to the hon. the Minister: “This man has now committed an offence”? Who is the hon. the Minister to say, with all the kindness of his heart: “You must not prosecute the man; is it really an offence we do not worry about?”

If the law classifies certain conduct as an offence, then surely it is an offence? One cannot legislate in this House on assurances from the hon. the Minister. Who knows what the attitude may be of his successor, one of my hon. friends opposite, who are trigger-happy when it comes to prosecutions and things of that nature? The position would then be very different. For that reason I believe it is only just that if a person is regarded as being capable of accepting greater responsibilities, he is entitled to his promotion and to a salary commensurate to the job he has been given.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. the Minister that two years ago, in 1972, we were dealing with three pieces of legislation which were concerned with the Coloureds and applied to South-West Africa. At that time we argued on exactly the same basis. As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, even if similar provisions are contained in the Educational Services Act, and even if the position in the other provinces is what was referred to, we are taking the opportunity here to point out that, in a case where this system applies and a person is transferred and then does not receive the salary in question, this may well create dissatisfaction. It is an indisputable fact that this can create dissatisfaction amongst people. We are now dealing with a branch of our education in which we do not really want people who must feel that they are being exploited. The hon. the Minister said that he would not be able to help other Government departments if he accepted the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North. That argument does not hold water, for with a person’s consent, the Minister can, in terms of clause 8(3)(a)(ii) transfer that person anywhere. The fact of the matter is that this must take place with the consent of the person concerned. If these two principles which are contained in the Bill, are in fact going to be implemented, the effect would be that one would create dissatisfaction among people. What use would it be to tell a person that he is to go and help the Railways or the Department of Posts and Telecommunications or is to go to South-West Africa or to any other Government department if that person is not willing to do so? In the first place, this is not the way to deal with people.

In the light of the type of work with which we are dealing, we believe that these two provisions are undesirable and must not appear here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member says such action may create dissatisfaction. I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that this very provision has been in the Educational Services Act since 1967. I do not know whether he can mention a single case where dissatisfaction arose as a result of this. I repeat that it is my function to co-ordinate conditions of service, and for that reason I cannot depart from the fixed pattern which exists in various other branches, among others also in the Public Service itself. I cannot create a new pattern while it is really my function to bring about uniformity. This is the reason why I cannot accept his suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, to create a new pattern is exactly what I want the hon. the Minister to do. Should something be wrong, and should he feel he should create a new pattern, surely then he ought to be able to create a new pattern.

Mr. Chairman, one does not create a new pattern unilaterally, nor will I do so now in consequence of the hon. member’s representations.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

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

To omit all the words after “of”, where it occurs for the first time in line 2, page 11, up to the end of paragraph (f) and to substitute “the Department”.

Paragraph (f) of clause 9 deals with misconduct by officers employed at training centres. As the paragraph reads, an officer shall be guilty of misconduct if he—

We believe this provision is framed far too widely. I may just tell the hon. the Minister that we succeeded in effecting a similar amendment in the Coloured legislation two years ago. In that legislation “any department of State” was amended to read “the department of State”. The Minister of Coloured Relations took the initiative.

Sir, what does “publicly” mean? It is a tremendously wide term. As this legislation reads at present any person criticizing any department of State is guilty of misconduct. If a person were to refer to the Railways and to the trains being so slow, it would be public criticism. If he were to refer to the poor telephone service, it would be public criticism. We accept that people employed by this institution will also be allowed to be members of political parties and that some of them may act as chairmen of a branch. Sir, how is it possible for a person such as this to perform public functions or to open a meeting without being guilty of misconduct technically? The hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations, who is not here at the moment, was prepared to effect this amendment two years ago; he appreciated that the scope of this was far too wide. As a matter of fact, this provision encroaches upon the rights of the individual. I can appreciate why one does not want a person to have the right to criticize his own department in public, because, after all, his department is his employer. One would never find a person who is employed in commerce or industry and who may be selling a certain brand of cigarette, for instance, speaking ill of those cigarettes in public, because if he did, his employer would quite rightly adopt the attitude that he was being disloyal to his company.

Sir, it would go a long way if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to accepting our amendment. We cannot approve this clause in principle. In this regard we already have the example set by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations who, under similar circumstances, was prepared to accept an amendment such as the one I am proposing here. If the hon. the Minister accepts my amendment, the necessary corrections can be effected in the ordinances concerned, or in the Educational Services Act.

Mr. Chairman, this clause 9 deals with staff, and lists a number of instances which, if proved, would constitute what is termed a misconduct. In terms of clause 9(o), misconduct is deemed to be “an offence”, and a person who commits an offence is guilty therefore of misconduct. Sir, we feel that this is far too wide a provision, because when you use the word “offence”, it could be an offence literally in terms of any Act of Parliament or even in terms of common law. It could be a technical offence; it could be an offence against a person or against a thing. For instance, a person who is an officer of the department might in fact be found guilty in, say, an action in a rents matter in terms of the Rents Act, in terms of which he may have charged too high a rental for property owned by him. A person may fail to support his wife, and this in itself would be an offence if he has been ordered by the court to support his wife. A person may be found guilty of keeping too many cows on an urban property, and this may well be an offence in terms of some local government provision. It may be said that a person who is caught speeding and found guilty and fined perhaps R100 is guilty of an offence but will not come under the purview of this Act. That is not true because in terms of the wording of this clause, it would fall under this Act. Sir, this provision could also lead to a malfunction in the department. Let us say that a senior man in the department, who does not like a junior man in his department, decides to report that the latter has been found guilty of an offence and has been fined in court for, say, not maintaining his wife. If he lays a complaint, it is true that in terms of clause 10 a discretion is vested in the Secretary, who may or may not lay a charge, but if a charge is laid and the provisions of clause 10 come into play, then several things happen. Firstly, the person concerned has to answer for his conduct; he has to make representations. If he pleads not guilty, he has to state his case and he may be investigated by somebody who is appointed to inquire into the situation. If it is found that he was in fact guilty of an offence technically, as is broadly stated in this clause, then he is technically guilty of a misconduct. This will obviously go on his staff record. In addition it then becomes incumbent upon such a person to lay bare his personal and private life before the person making an inquiry. We feel that clause 9, which sets out very fully all the circumstances which would constitute a misconduct, creates very broad grounds for what may be termed misconduct. We maintain that these are adequate and we are not at all keen to bring into the spectrum of the Bill offences which may in the circumstances bear no relation whatsoever to the competence or ability of the person concerned to perform the work as envisaged within the scope of this Bill. I therefore move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

This would at least circumscribe the type of offence which would render such a person guilty of a misconduct.

Mr. Chairman, I want to be short and I do not want to repeat arguments, but should just like to lend my support to these two amendments appearing on the Order Paper. I honestly feel it is going a little too far in terms of misconduct, to say that one is not allowed to criticize other departments of State, and the same applies in respect of an offence, too. It is framed so widely that I am unable to understand it.

Criticism in public. [Interjections.]

“In public” could be any place where one goes. One need not hold a meeting to criticize a department of State. One could simply talk about it in public, or could speak out on the matter in public, by saying that certain actions on the part of a department of State were wrong or that a particular official was guilty of misconduct, or that the policy was wrong, and then one would be incurring this risk. It is therefore framed too widely to my liking.

Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment to restrict the scope of the clause. Sir, the hon. the Minister should remember that his Government introduced politics into the Public Service.

That is nonsense.

Of course they did. They permitted public servants to participate in politics. Now, what is the position? If I am a United Party member of the Public Service, then certainly one of my prime functions and desires will be to criticize the Government in a number of departments, but I can still be a loyal servant of that department. But it suits the Nationalists because the “stemvee” they now have in the Public Service can be told: “Don’t you mention a word of criticism of the department or you lose your job”. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is what the position is now. I do think the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs showed great wisdom and reasonableness when he applied the limitation to the department in which the individual is employed and not to any department of State. The hon. the Minister of Justice, sitting opposite me, would have a very happy time if all the Sappe in the Government service were prohibited in any way from criticizing him and some of the things he does in his department. That is what he wants. That is what the hon. the Minister wants here in this particular clause. Sir, if the old rule still applied in regard to the regulations regarding the participation of public servants in politics, then there would be some reason for accepting a clause of this sort. But it was not we, but the Government itself which opened the doors to party-political activities by State employees. If they are State employees, I would go further and ask now irrespective of the party to which they belong, they will be able to exercise their political rights which this Government has given to them if they are being muzzled regarding criticism of any State department in public. It is all right to say “publicly”, but the restriction of “publicly” is very, very limited.

Order! I have heard that argument three or four times already.

I am considering the question of what “in public” means. There was an interjection from the hon. member for Potchefstroom which indicated that the word “public” has a very restricted meaning in so far as its general and accepted interpretation is concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to follow the good example set by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations and to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I knew the hon. member would put his foot into it if one only persisted long enough. It is because the United Party have always regarded the officials as voting fodder that 90% of them vote for the National Party. They vote for people who have appreciation for them. Because we have appreciation for them, they vote for us. It is these voting fodder stories which cause trouble for the hon. the Opposition. However, I do not want to talk politics any further.

The clause concerned relates to critcism expressed in public. I can understand only too well the hon. member for Durban Central moving an amendment which reveals his objection to the word “publicly”. This does not mean that I agree with it, but at least it makes some sense. But why the hon. member wants to afford an official the right to be able to criticize his department …

No, not his department.

Surely, that is what his amendment seeks to do.

No, the words “the department” appear in my amendment

Very well, let us concentrate on that. The hon. member therefore wants to afford an official the right to be able to criticize all other departments and administrations in public. Where would it lead to if we were to introduce something of this nature? If my employees were to have the right to criticize me far and wide, what would become of my business? What would become of the State administration if officials of the State were afforded the right by law to criticize the State in public? After all, there are associations through which the officials are able to state their case. They have well organized associations. Surely, the good order and administration of the State will undoubtedly be destroyed if officials had to have the right to voice criticism in public.

I also do not know whether the hon. member for Sandton was in earnest about the arguments he advanced on the question of committing an offence. He spoke about too many cows grazing in a camp, about speeding offences and about a person who fails to pay maintenance, and such nonsense. Surely this is not what it is all about. It concerns provisions contained in the Public Service Act and numerous other Acts relating to departments of State and the conditions of service of officials. It concerns the provisions affecting an official who is guilty of an offence. Since when is an ordinary traffic offence regarded as an offence for these purposes? I think the hon. the Minister is trying his best in this respect to set out properly the existing legal provisions concerning the good order in this Bill as well. The offences we have in mind here, are not only offences in terms of this legislation. If other serious offences are committed, should the provisions of some other legislation be applied in order to be able to take steps against an official? [Interjections.]

Therefore, in my opinion both these matters can be compared with provisions which are already incoroprated in existing Acts.

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, I want to make it clear that what is intended with this provision as it appears in the Bill, is the preservation and maintenance of the sound relations among departments. It is a fact that my department draws teachers from the provincial education departments, while the provincial education departments in turn draw teachers from my department. Consequently there is some reciprocity in this regard. We should be mindful of the maintenance of sound interrelations among the various departments. If I were to accept this amendment now and exclude, for instance, the provincial administrations and the Administration of South-West Africa, I would make it possible for a teacher whom I drew from the Cape Education Department, for instance, to take up employment in my department and spread endless rumours against the Cape Education Department, rumours which may be unfounded and aimed at undermining the discipline and the good order in this education department. I would not be able to deal with a person such as this. For that reason this clause is being considered most desirable and essential.

With regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton, I want to say that his suggestion will have the effect of limiting the provision. In other words, an official employed by the Department of National Education may be guilty of an offence which is not specifically mentioned in this legislation and which may consequently render him unacceptable to my department. It would not be possible for me to get rid of an official such as this. For that reason it is essential that this provision remains unchanged. I also want to tell the hon. member that there is, after all, a prescribed procedure which has to be complied with before one is able to take steps against an official such as this. One simply cannot turn anyone out into the street and deprive him of all his rights and privileges. He has to be charged in the proper way. He is entitled to a hearing and to defend himself against the charge. In other words, he is not simply turned out into the street on account of this provision we want to place on the Statute Book.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that if we were to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton it would have the effect of limiting these provisions. He pointed out that it would be difficult for him to take steps against any person who had committed an offence not defined in terms of this measure. Only a few offences are being defined in this Bill. If the hon. the Minister considers the procedure which has to be followed in conducting an investigation into misconduct on the part of officials, he will notice that the following is being provided for in clause 10(12):

In other words, it is possible for the Minister to take steps against any person who has already been found guilty of a criminal offence. For the sake of the hon. member for Potchefstroom, I just want to mention that he said that this provision appears in all our legislation. I have here in front of me the various legislation dealing with education in South-West Africa.

The words contained in this legislation read “if he has committed a criminal offence”. What we want, is that it should also be possible to take steps against any person who has committed a criminal offence when he is guilty of an offence in terms of this Bill. The hon. the Minister said the procedure would only apply after the person had been charged but why does he not accept the provision contained in the Coloured education legislation where reference is made of a specific criminal offence? Provision can therefore be made in this Bill for steps to be taken against any person who committed an offence either in terms of this measure or a criminal offence. There would then be no doubt whatsoever that a person could otherwise be charged.

Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I heard that a distinction is made between a criminal offence and an ordinary offence. I wonder whether the hon. member could tell us what the difference is between an “offence” and a “criminal offence”. An offence remains an offence. The word “criminal” before “offence” is merely a definition of the same concept. There is no real difference in meaning between an offence and a criminal offence. The hon. member makes a mistake in referring to subsection (12), which prescribes the procedure to be followed, and in saying that it has no bearing on the clause. However, the position is that only the procedure which has to be followed in the specific case of an offence committed in terms of clause 9, is being laid down in subsection (12).

Mr. Chairman, I should like to answer the hon. the Minister on the point he has raised. He felt, as I understood it, that should this amendment be accepted, it might create a situation where he would be stuck with an officer of his department who perhaps had a bad influence on his department and with whom he could not deal. I submit that he could deal with such person in terms of clause 9(b), which also defines as misconduct the actions of an officer who—

That is put very widely. In such a case, if the person concerned has been guilty of some act which is prejudicial to the Administration, the matter could well be open to inquiry. What I want to point out is that there is a discretion in the matter. The discretion, which is in the hands of the Secretary, relates to whether or not he is to charge such person. However, if the Secretary decides to charge such person, even if it should be unjust, once the person has been found guilty of “an offence” in terms of any Act, he is technically guilty of misconduct. A copy of the record, as has been pointed out has to be handed to the person conducting the inquiry. He will then record that the person concerned is guilty of misconduct. This will go on his record. What we are then doing is to ensure that such person is punished twice. He has already been punished for the offence with which he was charged, and he is now being punished twice. I think, therefore, we must ask for this amendment to be included.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to this question of the criticism of any department, including the provincial administration, in terms of this prohibition. This is a very far-reaching provision. Let us take, for example, ecologists who are interested in natuure and nature conservation and who are concerned, for instance, about the development along our coastline and about township developments. They are perhaps concerned about a decision relating to a Sandy Bay development and consequently find it necessary to criticize the provincial administration for its decision. These critics are then making themselves guilty of an offence because they are criticizing a department in terms of this clause. Let me put it another way. Someone is deeply interested in the question of the preservation of the present Garden Route and is deeply concerned about the location of the new freeway. Because he is a public servant, because he works in the relevant department, because he is a man who is concerned about things like nature conservation, if he is in any educational sphere, he is not permitted to mention a word.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.