Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, last night during the course of a rather heated debate, the hon. the Minister complained bitterly that we had only handed our proposed amendments to him at 4.30 in the afternoon. I hope the hon. the Minister is aware that in terms of the Rules of this House we were under no obligation whatsoever to give him any prior notice of our amendments. Instead of appreciating and acknowledging the courtesy of this side of the House in extending to him a preview of our amendments, we got a thousand words from him. I hope that we are not going to continue in that vein in this House and I hope that courtesy will be acknowledged in future. [Interjections.]

Order!

We on this side of the House are most dissatisfied with the answers which the hon. the Minister gave to the points we raised yesterday. Particularly in regard to this clause, when we asked why he does not wish to have these inspectors under the control of the laws which govern the public service the hon. the Minister gave us no reason whatsoever. When we looked at the provisions of the new section 10(l)(bXi) we asked him what exactly these one or more bodies were which he wants to constitute, but he gave us no answer at all. We do not know what these bodies are which are to be outside the laws governing the public service and we also know nothing about the other persons or class of persons who will act as inspectors and controllers outside the public service. We have a large public service machine in this country and I believe there is plenty of scope within that organization for this Minister to find all the inspectors, all the controllers and all the bodies which he may require. I believe it is not necessary for him to go beyond the public service and therefore I move the first amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

I believe that we have a good enough machine to carry out all the functions which the Minister may require under the Act without going outside the public service.

We come to the question of these inspectors who are now to be appointed and have certain powers conferred upon them by the Minister in terms of the proposed new section 10(3). In terms of this subsection we are not going to have just 93-octane inspectors: in fact we are not going to have 98-octane inspectors. What this hon. Minister wants is 100-octane inspectors those with all the power, all the get up and go, all the Draconian powers which the hon. the Minister has asked for, those of searching without warrant, of seizure, retention and disposal without warrant and of arrest and detention without warrant.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently whether he is going to authorize these inspectors to carry out their powers against Ministers of the Cabinet and the vehicles which they are driving, even if they are Government vehicles, so that they can dispose of them as well? We have had the instance of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development being found guilty of speeding in terms of the regulations. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he considers the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as being unpatriotic as he last night accused every person of being who drives at more than 80 km/h. Does he consider the hon. members for Klip River and Newcastle, who were also found guilty of driving at a speed in excess of 80 km, as being unpatriotic? I do not consider this at all to be a test of patriotism and the hon. the Minister’s predecessor who repudiated the hon. member for Port Natal when he tried to tie this to patriotism did not either. I want to put it here and now that this is not a test of patriotism. This side of the House has never been found wanting when it has come to a test of patriotism. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister required 100-octane inspectors to carry out these functions. I believe that he can carry them out without wielding the big stick. He does not require these Draconian powers and for that reason I move the second amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The effect of this will be that the hon. the Minister may still determine the powers duties and functions of these persons which will be subject to the provisions of the Act. That we are prepared to grant him notwithstanding the tremendous powers which he has in terms of the Act at the moment. In connection with the investigation by these inspectors of offences in terms of the Act the Minister will also be able to confer upon those inspectors such powers as he may deem necessary, expedient or useful once again in terms of the Act under which—I repeat—he already has tremendous powers. There is no need for these extra-statutory powers, these special powers which go beyond the normal tenets of the law and which are in fact greater powers than those which were taken by the Prime Minister for his own Bureau for State Security, the organization known as BOSS. That bureau does not have the power which this hon. Minister now wants to take to confer on people who will not be members of the public service, who will not be subject to the laws governing the public service and who we do not even know will be fully trained or fully aware of normal legal practice. [Interjections.]

These people will have the opportunity of invading the privacy of any person, without any warrant, without let or hindrance and they will be able to perpetrate there anything that they wish purely at the say-so of this hon. Minister because he is not prepared to accept the normal tenets of law. When we talk about the invasion of privacy, I believe that notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Minister is prepared to issue them with a document in terms of the proposed new subsection (5), a document authorizing them to carry out these powers, he must go further than that. I believe it should be a requirement of every inspector, before he enters any premises or when he enters any premises, to produce to the person in charge of those premises, motor car, vessel or aircraft his authority to enter these premises to investigate the possibility of a crime having been committed. Similarly, when someone is stopped on a dark night by a person who steps into the road and commands the driver to stop because he is driving at more than 80 km an hour, that person, unless he is in the uniform of the South African Police or of the provincial traffic police, should be required to produce his authority to stop that motorist and to demand certain things of him For that reason I move the third part of the amendment as printed in my name, as follows—

Sir, I believe that these three amendments which I have moved are perfectly reasonable. I believe that they were motivated during the Second Reading debate. I believe that what I have said now is sufficient to convince the hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite of the justice of what I have said and of the justice that will be done and will be seen to be done if these three amendments are accepted.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. These questions were raised yesterday in the Second Reading debate, and when the Minister replied last night he did not reply to a single question raised by this side of the House. The hon. the Minister is very fond of saying, when he makes a statement, that he has it on the best of authority and that he has taken the best of advice, and he sometimes stresses that his authorities are recognized world wide. But I would be very interested to hear whether the hon. the Minister can produce an authority recognized world wide for what he is proposing in this clause. Sir, he has not answered the question put to him in regard to compensation. If you look at the new section 10(3)(a)(ii)(66) inserted by clause 2, you will see that these inspectors can seize, retain and dispose of any goods without warrant. We ask the hon. the Minister what is visualized with regard to compensation; it is not mentioned in this Bill and it is not mentioned in the principal Act. All we can assume from the way in which this Government normally deals with these matters is that these officials will not be liable even if the person whose premises were entered is subsequently found to be innocent. Sir, when we asked the hon. the Minister which people he had in mind to perform these functions, he said that he might appoint somebody from Iscor. He even went so far as to suggest that he might appoint somebody from Highveld. One can only assume from this that he was referring to steel. Sir, this verges on a credibility gap because why should it be necessary to provide for the power to enter a house without warrant to search for steel—I can only assume that he was referring to steel—in such quantities that it could constitute a national danger. Quite honestly, Sir, I do not know of any private houses, which are covered by this clause, where one could store enough steel for it to be a national danger. The real trouble with this clause is that the Minister is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut which may or may not be there. Presumably what we are after here are people who store things in conflict to the national interest. If people are going to store oil or steel in such large quantities that it justifies the introduction of this kind of legislation, surely it would only take a comparatively short time to go and get a warrant for that search, and if the quantity is such as to justify a search, I cannot see for a moment how the person who has been storing it will be able to get rid of it before the inspector comes back with a warrant. Sir, even in the most Draconian of measures, this Government has always to some extent adhered to the principle that a person searching premises must have a search warrant. But all that is required under this clause is prima facie evidence. People can enter any building, any house, without warrant and search, seize, retain and also dispose of goods. Could the hon. the Minister enlighten us as to what he means by the words, “to search without warrant” and “dispose of any goods or thing”? There is no qualification as far as I can see. Is there any question of liability if it is subsequently proved that there was no justification for entering the premises and seizing goods or things? After all, there is such a thing as human error. Sir, I think the hon. the Minister really ought to try to give us some reason for these provisions and perhaps he would explain his reference to steel. If what he has in mind is not only steel and oil, would he tell us what other things he has in mind?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to support my colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, with particular reference to the third amendment which he has moved in relation to the question of inspectors displaying their authority when they enter premises and carry out their duties in terms of this measure. I want to suggest to the Minister that the question of an inspector carrying out his functions can become a very personal issue in certain instances. I know that from personal experience. Everyone has the right to question the bona fides of an inspector, but very few people choose to exercise that right because they believe that it immediately creates a sense of antagonism in the mind of the inspector because he feels that his bona fides are not accepted when he says, “I am an inspector; I wish to carry out certain functions in terms of the powers given to me.” Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously to consider this amendment, because it would merely make for a smoother operation of this particular section. All the inspector would have to do, if this amendment is accepted, would be to identify himself when he enters premises and to indicate to the individual, organization or firm whose premises are being inspected, that this is the authority under which he is acting. I believe it would create a better atmosphere in human relations if the inspector did that without having to be asked to do so. Sir, there are precedents for this. This principle has been accepted in previous legislation. I would, with respect, like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Atmospheric Pollution Act, where this provision exists in four or five sections. Then I would like to refer him to the Foods, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, to the Hazardous Substances Act, to the Drugs Control Act and to the Dental Mechanicians Act, just to mention a few. Sir, in order to be constructive, I should like also to refer the hon. the Minister to the opinion expressed by one of his former Cabinet colleagues, the then Minister of Health and Planning (Dr. Carel de Wet), who accepted an amendment based on this argument; he said this—

On that argument the then Minister of Health was prepared to accept the amendment. I would like to appeal to this hon. Minister in the same spirit to accept the third amendment moved by my colleague.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister where he is going to get people who are fit and competent enough to investigate any offences created in terms of this measure, or to investigate any attempt or conspiracy or incitement or any person to commit such an offence. Sir, I know that the poor old South African Police are going to be called upon to perform yet another extraneous duty. Investigating officers are men who are chosen for their skill and for the special qualities which are required to be a successful detective. Sir, it is not every policeman who can become a detective. Not only do detectives receive the ordinary training given to policemen, but they undergo an intensive course for about four to six months before they even become detective probationers, let alone detective constables. In support of what has been said here by the two previous speakers on the question of carrying identity cards, I want to say that every policeman, whether he is in the uniformed branch, in the C.I.D. or in the Security Branch, carries an identity card Sir, we are having a large number of thefts today in the towns where people walk in, particularly where only domestic servants are left behind, posing as furniture removers or something like that. Thefts of that nature abound. We now come along with inspectors who do not have to produce any identity documents, who do not have to produce search warrants, who in fact do not have to produce anything at all. You can take it from me. Sir, that crooks will take advantage of this and that South Africa will be further inundated with more serious crime.

In the first place, I just want to refer to the first point made here by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

†He talked about one or more bodies and wanted to know what these bodies were. There is nothing new in that. If you look at the existing Act, you will see it refers to constituting “such” bodies. We are just putting in “one or more” instead of “such”. There is nothing new about it.

Have you established these bodies?

No, not formal bodies but we can see that we may possibly have to establish certain consultative, or any other kind of body that we may need. It is an administrative matter.

Administrative bodies only?

It is not a new principle at all. We simply substitute “one or more” for “such”.

Now, coming to the first of the three amendments where in (b)(ii) on page 3 of the Bill the hon. member wants to add “subject to the laws governing the Public Service”. I did, of course, refer to this last night, and this brings me to my hon. friend, the member for Johannesburg North, who said that I did not answer any of the points raised last night. Really, Sir, if you look at my Hansard speech you will see that I replied to a whole number. I do not know whether the hon. member was in the House. However it is a rather remarkable thing to say because I said quite clearly that we did not want to be bound to having all these people we might appoint members of the Public Service, because it could tie our hands. I said that in a case of emergency we might find it advisable and necessary to appoint, for the sake of argument, a controller of steel products. After all, we had this sort of think in the war and I think there are examples of this sort of thing also for other kinds of emergencies. I mentioned that and I said that we might possibly there find that the sort of man we wanted to appoint might be a man whom we could find say at Iscor or at some other steel-manufacturing works—a man, therefore, who will have detailed knowledge of the business. That man is then an Iscor man or, as the case may be, a man employed in some other organization where he has gained the specialized knowledge we require. That man would not be in the Public Service. What would be the point of putting him into the Public Service if he has to resign where he is at present?

May I ask whether there is any reason why such a man should not be brought into the Public Service to perform his duties, as happened during the war?

The point is that we may not be using that man full-time. After all he may well be continuing with some of his present duties. These things happen. I want to be constructive because these are very important measures but I cannot possibly see how I can hamstring ourselves in this way, by saying that the man must necessarily be in the Public Service, because in many cases the sort of men we might need for this sort of work and other kinds of work are people who are employed elsewhere and they might wish to continue where they are while we can make use of their services as well. But I do want to repeat what I said last night, that when it comes to these appointments, the conditions and the remunerations attached to it, would be determined in consultation with the Treasury. That is quite deliberately done because we want at least to bear in mind the sort of pattern of employment that we have in the Public Service. It is, therefore done to keep a balance. I think really that when you look at it from the practical point of view, the hon. member will realize that we have a difficulty here and it really would be extremely difficult for us to deny ourselves the opportunity to make use of this type of highly-skilled service simply because we say these men must be subject to the laws governing the Public Service. I do not wants to spell that out in greater detail now.

Then I want to refer to the next amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, i.e. to omit all the words after “useful” in line 20, page 5, up to and including “person” in the line 30. Now, in the first instance you will see, Sir, that there is of course a discretionary power here. It does not say the Minister “shall” do these things; it says very clearly that the Minister “may” in connection with an investigation by inspectors of offences referred to in subsection 2(b) by notice in the Gazette confer upon these inspectors such power as he may deem necessary expedient or useful in respect of certain things which we then list. The effect of the hon. member’s amendment is to delete (aa), (bb) and (cc) and simply to say that the Minister may in connection with such investigation confer upon inspectors such powers as he may deem necessary, expedient or useful. This point was raised in the Second Reading debate too and doubts were expressed about some of these powers which we seek in this discretionary manner. It will have to be done by publication in the Gazette and it simply gives the Minister the discretion to do so where he deems it necessary. I want to say at once that there never was any intention and there is no intention to use this particular power to confiscate, for example, a vehicle whose driver might be exceeding the speed limit. That is no part of what we have in mind here at all.

It could happen in terms of this.

Indeed, if you look at the existing Act you will see that in section 5 there is specific reference to confiscation of illegally acquired goods at suspension of certain services, etc.

Only confiscation of illegally acquired goods.

The point is that if I had had any intention of using a power of confiscation here I would have made an amendment to section 5. I would specifically have brought the matter in there. I want to state absolutely categorically that that is no part of our intention whatsoever. Indeed, I am told on high legal authority that there is very serious doubt that I would have any power here to confiscate such a vehicle.

Not confiscate, but to seize.

Yes, I want to come to that. There is a big difference. Take fuel, with which we have a problem at the moment. We have to conserve fuel and we have to try to see that these measures are effective. We may have a very serious suspicion that petrol is being stored in big quantities, let us say in a vehicle or in any sort of place. We would then certainly wish to have the discretionary power to say to the inspector that he must go and seize that because we want to have the evidence. It goes no further.

And to retain and dispose of it?

Yes, that is so, to retain it until such time as we are able to deal with the matter. In regard to disposing of it, the position is—and I have to rely on our legal advisers—that the Minister has to have power to dispose of this in certain ways—to give it back to the person from whom it was seized for example.

Without warrant?

Yes, we may have to seize without warrant. Let me just deal with the question of being without a warrant. Again in this instance the Minister “may” confer these powers, and he would only do so if it were absolutely essential. I think that is completely clear. Supposing, however, we have good reason to think that a lot of petrol is being stored somewhere illegally and it is necessary to seize this petrol. The inspector, who has no power to act without a warrant, goes to the place concerned, finds the petrol and asks the person there what he is doing with it. The man tells him that what is stored there is his own petrol. When the inspector asks to examine the petrol, the man tells him he cannot do so because that is his own private property. The inspector is consequently told to get off the premises. Let us say the inspector now goes looking for a policeman. He asks the policeman to go to the place and exercise his authority to examine the petrol. By the time they return, the owner has either got someone to cart the big drum away or has emptied it down the drain. These things are, in fact happening. I do not say they are happening all over the place, but they do happen.

These things are always happening in criminal law.

There are such examples. These provisions are intended to enable us to handle such a situation. How else can one manage it other than by having an inspector go to such a place fully empowered to take action? He must be able to act immediately. He must not have to go looking for a policeman, perhaps returning after half an hour after the evidence has been destroyed.

Why does the hon. the Minister not rely on the Criminal Procedure Act?

The Criminal Procedure Act has been examined very closely in this respect. In reply to that, I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that there are a number of examples in our law of powers such as these being conferred on officials or inspectors other than the police. One only has to look at the Customs and Excise Act or the Foods, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, 1929. Since 1929 these powers have been granted, specifically for circumstances such as these, to inspectors who are not police officers. In any case, this is not a new principle we are introducing. I am told there are a number of other examples I could quote here. We must be able to obtain evidence in these matters. Of course, I am only viewing the matter in the context of a few very simple contraventions. However, if one considers the whole ambit of this legislation which is concerned with national security, where a very serious situation could arise one realizes, it is absolutely essential to have these powers. However, we do not grant these powers automatically. If my hon. friends will look at this matter objectively, I believe they will appreciate the position. No Minister is going to confer these powers arbitrarily. In other words, no Minister is going to tell a man he may go where he likes and seize what he likes. The legislation will be implemented with the greatest circumspection and only where it is absolutely essential to stop what could be a very serious abuse. I must put our case. As I said last night, we have looked at this matter with a great deal of care. We have had very wide consultation and we feel that to do this in any other way would be to tie our hands completely. We would not be able to deal with this type of abuse and others which one could easily envisage arising out of the provisions of this Act in circumstances other than those relating to fuel conservation.

I now want to come to the third amendment while I am still dealing with this point. The hon. member wants to add a subsection (6) to the proposed new section 10, as follows—

In other words, this will have the effect of placing a statutory obligation on, say, an inspector or possibly a controller who wants to go somewhere, to produce this document identifying himself. The way we have worked it here of course does not require him to do that. It is not mandatory that he should do that, but we say that he shall have something identifying him and if he is asked he must produce it. There is nothing, however, to stop him from producing it when he walks in. The Department of Commerce alone has a whole number of officials appointed in terms of the Price Control Act and other regulations. They are exactly on the same footing.

It is not a good footing.

It is common practice and it has been common practice for years. There are thousands of people who are doing this and it has been done for years.

It is negative and not positive.

What really are we achieving? Let us look at it objectively. I go into a place which I want to search and I have a document identifying me. I am told that in most cases these people do say who they are. According to my information they say in practically all cases who they are and what they would like to do. Thus they produce their identity. If an inspector does not do so, and he walks in and says that he wants to examine something, he can immediately be asked to produce the document which identifies him. He has the document which he must produce. I really cannot see that a fundamental principle is involved because the man will not say that he is not going to produce the document and refuse to identify himself. If he is asked, he just says who he is. I say again that in practice, and we have checked on this, the procedure is that people go to the place and say: “Here is my identity, this is who I am and this is what I want to do.”

Why do you not put it in the law?

The hon. member hears what is happening in practice, but he does not accept it. He says that it must be obligatory.

He is quite right.

What about the thousands of other inspectors who are appointed in terms of other Acts to do this sort of thing and who are not on this footing?

We opposed those Bills.

Some may be, but a very large number are not.

Other inspectors do not have these powers.

I have looked at this aspect and, honestly, I cannot see why we must make a statutory obligation when the man in any case has a document which identifies him.

Why not?

I really do not see how I can take my argument further than that. Perhaps I ought to leave it there at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. Minister would promote more understanding of what he is aiming at if he could give a concrete example of one case where the present system has not worked. The present system is one of using public servants and the police to do inspections and to investigate suspected hoarding that has taken place. That has been so essentially a matter for the Police Force. What worries us is that the hon. the Minister now proposes to convey that authority to persons who have not specifically been trained within the Police Force. At the moment one has to conjecture that this, that or the other thing may or may not have happened and for that reason these powers are not justified.

I am concerned about another aspect which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider. The hon. the Minister may now appoint inspectors inside and outside the Republic. To give these powers, or even to put in legislation, that he is going to authorize persons to operate in this way outside of the Republic of South Africa is highly dangerous. We are now putting on the Statute Book provisions in terms of which the hon. the Minister can authorize an inspector in Great Britain or France or who is travelling on an aircraft of the international airways to carry out investigations and to take these actions. The hon. the Minister will probably say to me, as is the custom of the Ministers, that that is not his intention. If this Bill is passed as it is the implication is that we, the Parliament of South Africa, are giving inspectors appointed by the Minister these powers to exercise them outside the jurisdiction of the Republic of South Africa. I believe this is something which we just cannot tolerate. I think it is harmful and wrong. If anybody wants to talk about the image of South Africa and legislation like this is put out for the world to see, we will have a time explaining it. We are going to send a new kind of secret service into foreign countries, because they are going to be able to seize property possibly belonging to citizens of another country. I think it is highly dangerous and that the hon. the Minister should accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

Mr. Chairman, I must support everything which has been said by my hon. friend for Green Point. I just want to reply briefly to the hon. the Minister’s argument regarding the third amendment I moved, requiring an inspector to produce his authority. A lot was said last night about achieving good relations between the department and the public. I believe this is one way in which he can allay the fears of certain members of the public. They are afraid, because they will not know whether somebody is an inspector or not. How would they know that he is an inspector? They are also afraid of the provisions of section 17 of the Act, which the hon. the Minister failed to mention. In terms of this provision anyone who hinders any other person in the exercise of his powers or the performance of his duties under this Act, shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction not just to a piffling fine, but to a fine not exceeding R2 000 or imprisonment for a period of two years or to both such fine and imprisonment. In other words, this House is saying that we consider this to be a serious offence to hinder an inspector. It is all very well for the hon. the Minister to say that he must produce the document when asked, but there is no compulsion whatsoever anywhere in this legislation on him to produce that document. This is exactly the intention of the amendment we have moved, namely that he shall be compelled to produce that document on demand. In fact, it should not even have to be demanded of him. To establish his bona fides and to help with the achieving of the good relations which the hon. the Minister requires for the carrying out of the provisions of this legislation, the inspector should be required, when he arrives, to establish his identity. It should be a matter of common courtesy for him, but because this cannot be relied upon, we believe that it should be incumbent upon him to produce that document when he arrives at premises he wishes to inspect.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a further appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider this particular aspect of the amendment to clause 3. I want to put it to him that I believe it is the duty of every Minister of the State to protect members of the public from any likelihood of fraud or bogus activity. If the hon. the Minister will accept our amendment, he will be doing just that, because there is always a possibility, where a man is not forced or bound by the Act to produce his identification, that a fraud could be perpetrated. A man can come along with a very smooth manner, indicate that he is an inspector and get away with it. I believe the State has a responsibility in respect of its citizens to try to prevent that wherever possible. The hon. the Minister has said that he has many inspectors in the various facets of his department and that in most cases he is sure that they do, before they carry out an inspection, identify themselves. On the other hand, we have legislation which to my knowledge has been on the Statute Book for more than 10 years where it is laid down specifically that this practice must be put into effect, namely that before an inspector carries out an inspection or performs any function under that section of his powers, he has to identify himself. As far as I know there has been no difficulty in implementing of that. There has been no amendment before this hon. House in the last ten years to do away with that particular provision on the grounds that it makes the implementation of the Act awkward for the people who have this duty to perform. I believe that in the interests of the protection of the public we are entitled to appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider the position from that point of view. If he is not quite satisfied with the wording, may I just say that this wording was approved by a senior legal adviser, a senior official of the House, when his advice was sought. Therefore, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, it is something that is good in law and I believe it is good in the interest of the public. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister again to reconsider his decision on this matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has come back to the question of steel and we are very happy that he has done so. Surely, when the day comes that we need to appoint a controller of steel, that will be a quite different state of affairs from what is envisaged under this measure. Naturally, no one will have any objection to the appointment of such people when the circumstances become appropriate, but I find it very hard to believe that the circumstances demand it at this point in time.

The other thing we would like to support, something we raised in the Second Reading debate, is the matter the hon. member for Green Point has now brought up again. I simply do not understand how these people can indulge in these activities outside South Africa with any legal standing whatsoever. What this amounts to, is a claim for extra-territorial jurisdiction. One cannot authorize a South African official to go to France, Germany, the United States or any other country one cares to name, to carry out these activities, because he will obviously be within the jurisdiction of the courts of that country. I simply do not understand what this amounts to. It certainly has no legal standing in the courts in any of those countries and I wish the hon. the Minister would enlighten us as to what the purpose behind this measure is.

I want to come back to the other matter that has been raised. Admittedly, the powers are discretionary. The hon. the Minister might, therefore, not exercise them, but these powers are vast if related to the only example the hon. the Minister has given us of their application. From what the hon. the Minister has said previously, if I understood him correctly, it appears that he needs these powers in order to be able to enter any house. He claimed that, if the officer concerned has to get a warrant, the person who is committing a crime or is suspected of committing a crime will have time to dispose of the evidence. The example used by the Minister of such evidence is a barrel of oil or petrol. All I want to say is that it is already considered án offence in South Africa, if I understand the position, illegally to conserve oil, but to, take powers of this nature and of this scope simply to prevent evidence of that nature being destroyed, by presumably a comparatively small number of individuals, is simply out of all proportion. The balance of the powers taken compared to the offence is simply out of all proportion.

Mr. Chairman, I deem it necessary to stress once again that this is a very important measure, and that the situation which has arisen as a result of the oil crisis, is a very serious one. The measures which we should like to have approved here today, are absolutely essential ones in our opinion.

†The hon. member for Green Point asked in what instances the police would not be able to do this work.

What cases of that nature have you had?

There are examples of this. There are cases where delays have been experienced which render the practical application of this whole question of the control over the saving and conserving of fuel virtually ineffective. These are cases where long delays are being experienced or where certain things are not being done because we simply do not have the manpower to call on.

Does the hon. the Minister of Police know that?

Yes, of course. He is working very closely with us. There are undoubtedly these cases, as I have mentioned. We want to make this more effective. Regarding this question of people being appointed inside or outside of the Republic, I want to point out that this is nothing new. I repeat, it is in the existing Act. It was approved in 1970 and has been there all along. Nevertheless, it is being asked how does a man operate outside the Republic. Obviously he has to act in collaboration and in co-operation with that country in which we would deem it necessary for him to carry out some kind of function. The police do this. We often send police outside the country to obtain evidence on certain things and they work in close co-operation with other Police Forces. This happens the whole time.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is it not so that when our police go out of the country they do not actually do the seizing but that it is done by the foreign policeman? The Minister is here authorizing our inspectors to do the seizing in a foreign country.

No, I think the hon. member should look at it again. It says the Minister “may”, I repeat “may”, confer certain powers on people. If he cannot confer those powers on people outside, he certainly will not. The question of inside or outside of the Republic is mentioned much earlier in the Act. This question which the hon. member now raise, that the hon. the Minister will now authorize these people to do something, is incorrect. The Minister may confer certain powers on people to do certain things and if those people cannot do that outside, the Minister could not possibly do that. It is a purely discretionary thing. I repeat, this is no new principle at all.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North raised the question of a steel controller. I used that simply as an illustration of the case where we might find it very important to be able to appoint someone outside the Civil Service. For the hon. member’s information, I might just tell him that at the moment we are receiving the utmost assistance, co-operation and advice in respect of these matters from someone who is a senior officer in one of the oil companies and who is doing this virtually full-time for us. We cannot employ him. His salary is paid entirely by the oil company. He is simply seconded free to us, and he is doing extremely valuable work. We feel that there are instances where we might well want to appoint that kind of person, if it can be done in consultation with the oil company or any other organization, as the case may be, as one of our inspectors. That is a very important point and I want to say that that kind of assistance we are getting is only one example. There are others and that kind of assistance is of the greatest possible value to us. I hope I have allayed the hon. member’s doubts on that particular point.

Coming back to the appeal made by the hon. member for Berea, I really do not want to appear unreasonable, but our advice throughout, and at this moment, is that it is by far the best way to do this, i.e. not to place a statutory obligation on this person but to give him a document identifying him. Obviously, we consult these people and give them all the assistance we can as to how to go about their work. There is a lot of this kind of training involved.

May I ask you a question?

Please let me complete this first. This is just as it is in the case of the work done by, for example, price control inspectors of whom there are a very large number. Let me put this point clearly. We are not trying in any sense to ruffle the public. We are trying to get their utmost co-operation. I want to say that it is on record in the form of a large number of letters, telephone calls I have had as well as the people who have come to see me. I can assure the House that the public appreciate the way this is done. There are difficult cases where people have had to travel a long way to get to court. However, we are doing our very best to ease that position as much as possible for the public. I mentioned last night that I am at this moment and have been for the last couple of weeks discussing this in detail with my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Justice, to see how we can meet the public’s convenience as much as possible where people are being had up for transgressing the regulations. I want to say again that these are serious matters. We are looking at the whole position including the question of extending admissions of guilt and the fines themselves. We go out of our way to impress on all these people working under the aegis of this department—I understand this is also done in regard to those people working under the aegis of other departments—that the only way to make a success of these provisions is to have the co-operation and goodwill of the public. I would say that when we send them out we place them under an obligation. We make it absolutely clear to them that they must carry out their functions courteously and reasonably. We give them this document. I say again that I have factual information that in virtually all these cases—I will not say in all cases because there may be some in which this is not done—the inspector goes along, produces his identity and states the purpose of his visit. I think it is a matter of opinion in regard to which is the better approach. However, it is not a case of our not giving such a person the wherewithal to identify himself and most certainly it is not a question of such a person riding roughshod over anyone’s rights. He has a difficult job to do and we are trying to assist him to do it.

It does not protect the public from fraud.

Let me reply on that point. The public do, of course, have to be protected against fraud in many ways. If a person purports to be an inspector under this legislation or any other legislation, and if he is in fact doing so illegally, he is contravening the law. The moment this is discovered, he will be in trouble with the law. It is not as though no sanction is being applied. The normal legal sanction is applied on every occasion. If such a person exceeds his authority, he will be in trouble with the law.

I regret to say that some of the points put forward have been unreasonable and because we have to carry out these provisions in practice, I am unable to take these matters any further in relation to the points that have been raised.

First amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

On second amendment,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Third amendment negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading the question was raised as to why, in terms of this clause, there should not be an opportunity for people who have been affected by the withdrawal of the exemption to be heard. I do not want to repeat all the arguments but the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the matter, did mention the difficulties which would arise in allowing for a hearing as he put it, of a large number of class of persons. I do not believe that that is really an insurmountable difficulty. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that without making this measure in any way less effective, he can accept the amendment which I have placed on the Order Paper. First of all, the language in which this clause is couched emphasizes what I am sure the hon. the Minister does not intend, and that is an authoritarian approach. The Minister can give exemptions and he can withdraw them without asking anybody and without hearing representations from persons who are affected. That is an undesirable attitude to adopt in legislation. If circumstances are to change for a particular person involved as a result of a decision by the hon. the Minister, that person should have the opportunity of making representations as to why that change should not take place. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that when he grants exemptions to individuals or to a group of persons, they may well embark upon expanded industrial or manufacturing activities or they may well invest in additional machinery. They may well be committed to matters which the hon. the Minister would not be aware of. Having exempted a class of persons from certain restrictions, the Minister would have encouraged them and would have given them the green light to undertake further development in their enterprise. When the Minister withdraws it, he will not be aware as to whether or not a grave injustice is being done to persons by that withdrawal if those persons are not heard. It may involve them in a substantial loss, which is understandable if restrictions have to be imposed in the national interest since that comes first. It may well be, however, that by such a withdrawal, persons in a particular industry which might be vital and necessary, persons who are performing essential services and doing essential manufacturing which is in the interests of the State, are adversely affected. The hon. the Minister has said that he does not think it is possible to give adequate notice.

I am not asking the hon. the Minister to have a trial, to have everybody there and have counsel for both sides arguing the case. My amendment is simply that the persons affected should be given an opportunity of making representations to the hon. the Minister. If he is going to exempt a class like charabanc owners or something of that nature, he does it by notice in the Gazette. Surely it is a simple matter for the hon. the Minister to say that it is his intention to withdraw that exemption from that particular class of persons and that representations may be made to him in writing by a certain date. I do not think that either the granting of the exemption or the withdrawal of the exemption is going to be as a result of some sudden impulse on the part of the Minister or on the part of his department. Obviously the granting of exemptions will be made after careful consideration; it will not be a sudden decision and similarly the withdrawal is not a matter which the Minister is going to do lightly. He will consider whether it is necessary to withdraw the exemption.

All I ask in this amendment is that the hon. the Minister should give the persons affected the opportunity to make representations. Otherwise one will find that the man has organized and ordered his affairs in the belief that he has an exemption, without being aware of the possibility of its withdrawal. Suddenly he is struck by a bolt from the blue, the exemption is removed and then he has to reorganize himself. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to this and to accept the amendments which I shall move. I believe that these amendments are just amendments which remove the taint of authoritarianism in this clause as it is at present worded. I move—

1. (1) To omit all the words after “therefor,”, in line 1, page 7, up to and including “thereof,” in line 3; and
2. (2) to add the following proviso at the end of paragraph (b) of the proposed section 15A:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point states his case in such a reasonable and such a pleasant manner that it is really very difficult not to accept his amendment immediately. I do fear, however, that in this regard, too, we have difficulties.

†Let me say at the outset that the last impression we want to create in a matter of this kind is that we are conducting ourselves in an authoritarian manner. It would be very unfortunate, because it would certainly not be the case. We are taking great trouble to try to keep the goodwill we have of the great majority of the public, because obviously to have this measure succeed and to have this whole Odyssey of ours to conserve fuel succeed, we have to have the goodwill and the co-operation of the public. In the first place it is, of course, the Minister who grants exemptions as my hon. friend for Klip River said last night. His argument was that in that case surely the Minister could then decide, if he felt that an exemption should no longer obtain, to withdraw it, and he asked whether it was then necessary for the Minister, if he granted these exemptions, to be statutorily compelled to receive representations from the affected parties.

In such a case—and I cannot think that it will happen often—the Minister will surely act with the greatest possible responsibility. If the Minister has granted exemptions to certain people, let us say under the fuel conservation measures because we constantly come back to them, but it could also be on a much wider front, he must surely have good reasons for saying to a person or a class of persons that they need not comply with a certain part of the regulations. But circumstances could change, or he might find that certain persons are abusing that privilege. He would then say that possibly in the public interest he would have to withdraw that. The hon. member wants the Minister in every case to be obliged by law to receive representations. Surely in that case the Minister must afford reasons for doing so, I would think that in practice, and this would certainly be my approach, that in a case where this happens I would wish to consult with the party and to discuss the matter with him. But I believe there are cases where that might not even be possible.

Let us take a completely hypothetical case. Supposing the Minister grants an exemption from some or other part of these regulations to farmers. If the Minister then feels that he should withdraw that exemption at a certain point for what must surely be presumed to be very good reasons, because the Minister cannot just act arbitrarily in these matters, surely what would happen is that these people will have to be notified. How many farmers would then not come to the Minister and insist on his hearing their representations? It could be an extremely impractical thing. Let me put it in another form. We know, for example, that university students are pretty sensitive about what they regard as their rights and that they are very quick to protest, and perhaps in some ways that is a good thing. But supposing university students were given certain exemptions or an exemption and the Minister felt at a certain point that that should be withdrawn. Can you imagine the thousands of students who would camp on his door-step if this were accepted? He would be obliged to hear their representations. The hon. member may say that this is a little far-fetched, but this sort of thing could happen.

More serious cases could certainly come up. This is a practical issue and this is why we feel that the Minister should not be obliged in law to follow such a cumbersome procedure. However, I think the hon. member will find, when he sees how this matter is dealt with, that we wish to act with the greatest sense of responsibility because the whole object is to maintain the very best relations with the public and have their full co-operation. Why, then, would a Minister go out of his way to act arbitrarily or in an authoritarian way? This must get the back up of the parties concerned which is the very thing we wish to avoid. I can only give that sincere assurance to the hon. member. For practical reasons we feel that it would put the Minister in an extremely difficult position if the amendment were adopted.

Mr. Chairman, listening to the hon. the Minister explaining how reasonable he is, I am reminded of the judge, a bachelor, who once was told that a certain lady litigant was a very reasonable woman. The judge replied: “Is there such a creature?” The hon. the Minister must realize that, when we look at legislation, we must also ask whether there is such a creature as a reasonable Minister when it comes to the utilization of these powers that are given to him. We cannot judge this legislation on the basis of how he is going to act, but on what he is permitted to do. We object to the form in which this matter is drawn up. I have said this before and I do not want to repeat myself, but I do want to make the point that this clause is phrased in a very autocratic way. Without giving any reasons and without hearing any persons, he can withdraw an exemption. Obviously the Minister would grant an exemption only after careful consideration, but I think his argument as to why people cannot make representations when an exemption is to be withdrawn, is fallacious and totally unacceptable. I shall not go any further, but we are certainly opposed to this measure as it has been put before us.

Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a minute. I want to support the hon. member for Green Point. The only argument the hon. the Minister seems to have used is that the procedure would be cumbersome. Well, quite frankly, we on these benches would much rather have a cumbersome procedure when such a basic principle of law is at stake than simply allow the hon. the Minister to abrogate an exemption on those grounds.

Mr. Chairman, surely it is correct that when a Minister grants an exemption, he does not give any reasons for doing so? Presumably he has certain facts put before him and representations made to him or he feels that the circumstances are such that he ought to grant an exemption. Then, when circumstances change, he may consider that that exemption should no longer hold good. So he withdraws the exemption. The hon. member says that if we use the words “without assigning any reason therefor”, we are being authoritarian. I dare say we could have left those words out, but we want to make it perfectly clear that the position is that the Minister will not be compelled to give reasons for the reason I have tried to set out. I regret that we have to differ on this point because, as I say, it would be a very great pity if the inference drawn was that we were trying to be authoritarian.

With regard to the hon. member’s little reference to the judge and the lady …

He was a bachelor.

… I feel quite sure he would have excluded the hon. member for Houghton. I repeat that I am not able to accept these amendments.

Amendments negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Mr. Speaker, this Third Reading debate is the final stage of a Bill which has occasioned severe and contentious discussion. I want to make it plain that the principal Act, Act No. 89 of 1970, was passed by this House with the full support of this side of the House and with only one Second Reading speech. There was no Committee Stage and the Third Reading went through smoothly. I want to make the point that it is on record that we on this side of the House have always recognized the need for the Government to be given the authority to control our strategic reserves.

Why all the noise last night?

We have discussed the various clauses of this Bill and we have moved a number of amendments which we considered necessary because of the public disquiet since the content of this Bill first became known. I believe it is fundamentally necessary that we on this side of the House should again record our regret that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs has not been able to accept any of the amendments which we put forward and which we sincerely believed would have made the Bill far more acceptable in the eyes of the public. I want to place on record, too, our disappointment that the hon. the Minister should have called into question the patriotism of this side of the House and, in fact, of the public at large, in connection with the implementation of this measure as regards the need to conserve this vital and strategic resource. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify this situation which at the moment is vague. In his speech of yesterday evening to hon. members of this House he indicated that one of the reasons why we had to conserve petrol and oil was the possibility that we would have difficulty paying for them and that this would have a detrimental effect upon our balance of payments. He implied that while the oils were strategically available from suppliers, the major factor was the question of payment. I think the hon. the Minister should clarify the minds of this House and of the public in regard to the actual situation, i.e. whether there is a shortage of oil on the part of the suppliers or whether we as a country are unable to meet the payments occasioned by the increased price of oil.

There has been public disquiet about the implementation of the various clauses which we have brought into dispute. I think as South Africa is at the moment under the microscope of world opinion, when we have our Ambassador at U.N. making statements to which we all fully subscribe, when we have a world-wide reaction from the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the major States, and when we as a country are taking a very serious look at our impaired image and doing everything in our power to abid by the rule of law not only nationally but also internationally, it is absolutely important that legislation which gives the unfavourable impression that this legislation does, should be carefully scrutinized. I believe that the very fact that the principal Act has been in operation since 1970, that it was in all its clauses acceptable and has given no cause for public disquiet, should have indicated to the hon. the Minister that where the public are certainly behind the Government in implementing its intention to conserve our vital fuels, he would have achieved far more by giving the public the assurance that the Act was in fact reasonable and workable. It must be remembered that the penalties under this Act do involve a maximum fine of R2 000, imprisonment for a period of up to two years or both such fine and such imprisonment. The public are therefore obviously disquieted. When one read, as was reported in the Press when the Bill was first made public, that there was a sweeping plan for fuel control and that the Minister of Economic Affairs would be empowered to appoint his own inspectors with wide powers of search, seizure, arrest and detention without a warrant in terms of the new Bill, one realized that if we were going to establish those good public relations which were essential, the kind of discussion that has taken place in this House would be vitally necessary. Both we and the other Opposition have made clear our disquiet in regard to particular provisions of the Bill. We have moved amendments which we would have liked the hon. the Minister to adopt. We regret that the fact that he has not done so, makes it necessary for us to vote against the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend delaying the House, but I think we are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister for a reply to the question asked him last night by the hon. member for Durban North. It was a reasonable question and I believe this House is entitled to a reply to that question. The question is a simple one. It is that the hon. the Minister, addressing a Committee of this House, made a clear statement that he was not threatening, that he did not want to assume powers which could achieve certain things, including specifically the right of confiscation. On the very same day that he was telling this House that he wanted to appeal to the public, that he wanted their Co-operation, that he was not going to use force, that he did not want to threaten them and that he did not want to apply unreasonable provisions—that was his appeal—he gave notice of this Bill which introduced the very thing that he said he did not want to do, that he wanted to avoid by seeking the co-operation of the public. He failed to tell the House that this was his intention. Not only did he fail to tell the House that he intended introducing the Bill which we are now debating, he told the House the opposite. He said that he did not want to do it. If one appeals for co-operation, then surely before you make the appeal you do not assume powers which negate that appeal? You do not appeal for co-operation—which the hon. the Minister has done again three times during the course of this debate—when you are the only person who knows—the very House you are addressing does not know—that notice has been given of a Bill of which the House does not know the contents. On that day the House did not know the contents of this Bill; we received the Bill two days after notice had been given. Two days before the Bill was received, the hon. the Minister stood up—I do not want to repeat his speech because the hon. member for Durban North did so—and on folio FF1 of his speech on 22 October he stated specifically that he was not going to threaten anyone. Later on, on folio FF3 of the uncorrected Hansard, he referred specifically to confiscation. I think we are entitled to a clear explanation of why the hon. the Minister told the House one thing when in fact he had already taken the first step to introduce this Bill. The other point I want to make is this, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister appealed for co-operation. He says that the fuel position is critical. But if he wants the cooperation of the motorist, if he wants the co-operation of South Africa, then the best way to win that co-operation is by winning the goodwill of the motorist. Last night the hon. the Minister pooh-poohed the suggestion that the speed limit should be raised to 100 km/h—I did not ask for the restoration of the old speed limit of 120 km/h—and he said that this would be ridiculous, that it would mean a tremendous increase in fuel consumption.

I did not use the word “ridiculous” at ali.

The hon. the Minister may not have used the word “ridiculous”, but he said it would make a very material difference in the consumption of fuel. The fact is, according to tests done on an average-sized car, that the raising of the limit from 80 to 100 km/h would mean that fuel consumption would be increased by 13%; it would mean an additional consumption of 1,6 litres over a distance of 100 km/h. The Minister can therefore present the global picture of our total fuel consumption and say that this is a significant factor. That is what he tried to imply without saying it. Am I correct? He implied that it would mean a significant or vast increase. But, Sir, we must remember that at least 90% of our cars travelling on the roads are travelling in the cities where the standard limit of 60 km/h remains. The only cars which would be affected if the limit were increased from 80 to 100 km/h would be those on the open road, not the mass of commercial vehicles, the mass of delivery vehicles and the other vehicles which are operating in the cities. Sir, you only have to travel by car to see the ratio between cars travelling in the city and those travelling on the open road. Sir, I do believe that the limit of 80 km/h on the open road is dangerous. It is dangerous because it creates lack of attention; it creates frustration and it leads people to take chances. While the reduction of the speed limit reduced the number of accidents at the start when the limit was reduced from 120 to 80 km/h, one already finds that there is a growing number of accidents and that the death rate is going up, and that is the position because of the frustration of a driver who is held up for hours by a great big pantechnicon in front of him travelling at, say, 50 km/h, whereas he is allowed to travel at 80 km/h.

Why would the same argument not apply to a limit of 100 km/h?

No, because at 100 km/h you are travelling at a speed where you maintain your momentum.

What is “momentum”?

At 100 km/h you do not find yourself in a position where you are held up by pantechnicons and heavy vehicles which you cannot pass without exceeding the limit of 80 km/h.

You are just wasting time now.

Order! I have allowed the hon. member some freedom, but I do not think that what he is saying now is relevant to the Bill.

Sir, I was referring to the appeal made by the hon. the Minister, but I will not take it further. I believe that he will get co-operation from the motorists not by threats and not by the powers which he is taking in this measure and not by waving the big stick at the motorist, but by restoring to the motorist a feeling that there is co-operation both ways, in other words, not just co-operation on the part of the motorist with the Government but cooperation on the part of the Government with the motorist. Sir, I rose really to say that we expect a reply from the hon. the Minister to the allegations made by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Speaker, we have now virtually reached the end of the discussion on this measure, and if you will allow me to repeat, I just want to make it clear once again that, as far as the Government and I are concerned, this is one of the most important measures that have been introduced in this Parliament during this session. I want to thank the hon. House that we have reached the point where we can now settle this matter. I regret that I could not except any of the amendments moved by the Opposition, but I tried to put my position very clearly. I therefore leave it at that.

†I want to stress my appeal to the public to co-operate with us in this great objective. We have got to do this. I want to make it perfectly clear at once that when it comes to the question of why we are doing these things, I can do no more than to repeat what I have said in this House. It is, in the first place, because of the great international uncertainty affecting the whole oil situation. We literally do not know what the position will be even a month or two ahead. There are all sorts of reports reaching us to the effect that there are possibilities of further increases in oil prices. My colleague the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to this, too, during the last day or two.

In other words, it is financial?

Oh no; give me a chance to state my case. The hon. member must not single out just one. There are three major reasons, each one of which, in my humble opinion, would be sufficient to justify the measures we have taken, measures which are extremely reasonable and moderate, when you come to look at the situation. The one, as I have said, is the great uncertainty that we really do not know what the future holds for us in regard to this crucially important strategic commodity, oil. The other is that there is an absolute obligation on us, as the Government sees it, to build up our strategic reserves of oil in this country in order to have that assurance and that safeguard should the future become as difficult as some people are in fact claiming. Thirdly, there is the question of course of the balance of payments. The additional cost involved in the importation of oil this year, as compared to last year, is enormous. The hon. the Minister of Finance also said so. We have to take that into account as well. Sir, if we were prepared to pay some quite outlandish prices, I daresay we could go further afield. We have certain information given to us from time to time, although when one investigates it, it often appears to be completely mythical. If we were prepared to pay still more outlandish prices, we could find oil, but there is a limit to what we can in fact put aside, because if we simply say we will pay any further amount for oil, we will be placing very serious limits on the importation of other very necessary and essential commodities, for example a whole range of capital goods which industry and mining and agriculture and the whole economy require in order to sustain our rate of growth, which is our absolute priority in this country.

I hope I have in these few words made out a case, because it does surprise me that this matter can come up at this moment again. Those are the crucial reasons, each one being as important as the other. We have to keep a balance, and we have to carry this out. I want to say once again that I am in close touch with the public, and my department is in close touch with the public. The public are co-operating magnificently except for a small minority. This is very regrettable, because this is a great national issue. Sir, it does not assist us at all when we find that I am being misrepresented in regard to what I said as the Minister responsible, because I have never made a threat in regard to this matter to anybody; I have never issued a threat, but some newspapers unfortunately have published it in that form, and it does not assist anybody when this attitude is taken, because I have never adopted this attitude and I hope I never will. Sir, I want to say that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens last night, in his speech in the Second Reading, in his characteristic way put his case courteously and reasonably. He said quite clearly, and he mentioned the fact many times:

That is the principle involved.

The aims, not the methods.

He went on to say:

That is not a question of principle. No, that relates to the amendments and the hon. member himself said so. He said:

He then went further and stated:

Does that not mean that he is actually supporting the Second Reading of the Bill? What else can it mean? That is how I expected the hon. member to put his case, and that is how he put it. I leave it to the House to decide on this matter. I am not going to argue about the meaning of words.

Why does the hon. the Minister not go and read Erskine May?

Fortunately, right up to the dinner hour the debate was carried on in a responsible manner, as one would naturally expect in this House. No one can deny that. Most unfortunately, however, for reasons known only to himself, the hon. member for Durban North then entered the debate. I do not want to refer to his speech, which I have here. I only want to say that in my view it is a matter of the utmost regret that in a discussion of such an important matter, the hon. member for Durban North should have had recourse to a lot of personal abuse directed at me. If he wants to do that, that is up to him. However, that is no way to handle this matter. One can read his speech and make up one’s own mind about it.

*I just want to say that I think he was extremely disparaging, reckless and irresponsible. We only have to read what he said.

†In his speech the hon. member for Durban North said quite clearly that he opposed this Bill. From that moment the Opposition unfortunately seemed to have changed their whole approach. This is a matter for great regret.

Will you answer his question?

I just want to make one or two other comments.

Will you answer his question?

Of course I will. In courtesy I just want to see that I am not omitting matters to which I should be giving my attention. I want to say that if there is any doubt about the importance of these measures, why is it that all the experts, those in this country and those we consult abroad, men of the greatest authority in this matter, without exception …

May I ask a question?

Just a minute. I have to answer this question first. After that, I shall answer your question. Why do the experts, without exception, advise us to retain our present measures?

Why have they done away with such measures in Europe?

Let us have a look at the position in Europe. The hon. member knows that Britain has discovered a huge oilfield in the North Sea.

That will only come into operation in ten years’ time.

That is not a production yet, but because of the certainty that Britain is going to have complete self-sufficiency as far as oil is concerned, she is able to go further than we are able to go at the moment. What about France? France’s economy is running very strongly and yet she has placed a very severe curb on the importation of oil from the beginning of next year. Her curbs are far more drastic than ours. What about the all-powerful economy of the United States? They do not only have speed restrictions even on their biggest international highways, as they call them, but in the last few days they have also announced that they are placing severe curbs on oil imports next year. What more drastic steps can you take? We have not resorted to that. We have not rationed and we have not put an import curb on oil. We have merely said that in the light of scientific tests which have been made we want to keep the speed restrictions because it is the most effective way of conserving this precious item. We have also introduced some restrictions, which I think are very moderate restrictions, on the hours of sale. The latter also helps us to conserve oil.

I want to come to what was said by the hon. member for Durban North.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

The hon. the Minister has said that he will answer the question. The hon. member must just bide his time.

The hon. member for Durban Point referred to a point which was made by the hon. member for Durban North. It has been put in anything but the correct form. I am going to read to him exactly what I said.

Let us not have a grammar lesson. Let us have an answer.

I am going to read exactly what I said. I said:

Page?

Page FF3. I quote further—

Exactly two specific things were raised. I went on to say, and this is the part of the representations which were made—

Those are the representations which were continually made to me by certain sources. I named exactly two things. Firstly, I said if people are continually going to do this sort of thing why do we not consider withdrawing their licences or why do we not confiscate their vehicles. I named those two issues. In the Bill I put before the House today I have specifically done neither of these two things.

Confiscation?

Not at all. I have dealt with that. I have taken the very best legal opinion available to the Government and I can give the absolute assurance that it is not part of this legislation to allow the confiscating of vehicles. I drew attention to the fact that in section 5 of the existing Act provision is made for confiscation of different things and on different conditions but that provision is specifically not touched in this amendment. That is the answer.

Why did you not tell the House?

The hon. member said that I misled the House because I did that.

Why did you not disclose it in the House?

Why should I have to if it was not in the Bill and if it was never my intention to bring it forward? What must I disclose? This is an important matter. There are other things which one could also do. I could impose import control on oil, but because I made no provision for that, and did not intend doing it, I did not disclose to the House that I could do that but was not doing it. Where was I misleading the House if I did not refer to a matter which I did not bring up anyhow? Surely there is such a thing as logical reasoning in this House and yet the hon. member knowing that I only referred specifically to the withdrawal of licences and the confiscation of vehicles in terms of representations made to me and my not having touched them because I did not intend to put them in the Bill, says I am misleading the House. I reject the hon. member’s charge with absolute contempt. I think the hon. member may wish to withdraw that sort of allegation because it has no force or effect whatsoever. I shall give the hon. member a chance to ask a question. He must not bob up and down because he must look after his health. I shall give him a chance at the end before I sit down.

I want to say that I have in the short time between last night and coming to the House this morning, had a few phone calls at home and in my office. People also stopped me in the street outside here last night and said to me that they could not believe it possible that the Opposition would have adopted an attitude to this measure as they did last night. I have the names of the people and I say this because of the way in which this matter was put last night especially by the hon. member for Durban North. [Interjections.] This is what one is up against. One cannot get the full facts put before the public, because some of our biggest newspapers refuse to co-operate. Listen to what one of them had to say on Sunday in regard to this issue. Referring to me, they said—

Here we are appealing to the public for co-operation on a national issue; yet this newspaper, without giving a single reason, distorts what I in fact said and aimed to do and says that it is largely the Governments fault, anyhow, that this position is as they think it is. They then go on to say—

The facts I have given and the arguments the hon. the Minister of Finance has given, would that not be ample reason for any man who has an elementary sense of patriotism towards his country? Is that not the position? I read further—

I state now for the record, and it will be in Hansard, that I have never threatened anybody from beginning to end. This is a most grave distortion of the whole position and of the attitude I have taken in the whole matter. This is the Sunday Times which is putting things in this way to the public of South Africa.

*I wish to thank the House for the time I have been granted in connection with this matter. I now want to leave it at that and once again to make an appeal, not only to the public outside, the vast majority of whom are co-operating very nicely, but also to my hon. friends on the other side of the House that, when in future we have to introduce measures of this nature in the interests of the fundamental considerations in connection with the future of this country and its welfare, they should co-operate with us and should not oppose us as they did here yesterday and today. I am doing this in a good spirit, because I think some of my hon. friends on that side of the House are extremely unhappy about the fact that the official Opposition adopted such an attitude.

†My hon. friend can now put his question to me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has on several occasions referred to certain internationally renowned authorities and experts. Would he mind just naming them so that we can judge whether they are in fact experts?

Mr. Speaker, we consult these people on a personal basis. It has never entered my head to say to the two particular people I have in mind, one in London and one in New York, that I am going to disclose their names. They are people who are also connected with certain interests in the international oil position. However, there are colleagues of mine who recently met one of them because, when we invited him to South Africa, he was good enough to come. If the hon. member has any doubts about his world standing in this matter and the sort of advice he was able to give us, he may relinquish those doubts because he can accept my assurance that it will give me great pleasure to give him that person’s name in private. It is a matter of simple courtesy that I cannot do it here. I do not have that person’s permission to make his name public.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the object in establishing a national park is definéd in Section 4 of the National Parks Act, 1962. The Act also makes provision for the powers and functions of the National Parks Board of Trustees. In the application of the Act, certain deficiencies have come to light from time to time and the purpose of the proposed amendments is to make good those deficiencies.

Doubts have arisen as to whether the construction of buildings for educational purposes, for example the Stevenson/ Hamilton Library in the Kruger National Park …

Order! Please, hon. members must not make such a noise.

… as well as museums in a park, may be construed as being within the defined objective. It is very clear that a national park should also serve an educational purpose. Consequently the relevant provision is being suitably amplified to eliminate all doubt. However, the fact that the main object of a national park must be the preservation of wild animal and plant life, has to be taken into account. The section is therefore being amplified to provide specifically that the activities under the Act are practised in such a way that the area comprising the park is, as far as practicable and to the benefit and pleasure of the visitors, retained in its natural state. At present the Act makes provision for twelve board members of whom one in respect of every province is nominated by the Administrator. The Administrator himself may of course be the member, provided the executive committee so recommends. This provision creates problems when there is no unanimity on the part of an executive committee on who should represent the province. The provision is therefore being amended to provide that the four administrators shall be members of the board. Furthermore it is being provided that the State President may, only when an administrator does not wish to serve as a member, appoint in his place as a member of the board, any member of the executive committee or provincial council concerned who has been nominated by the administrator.

Admission and accommodation charges in a national park may be prescribed by the board by way of regulation. Over the years, such charges have been determined by the board through resolutions of the board and this power is now being clearly written into the Act. Similarly, provision is being made for the board, at its own discretion, to allow board members, officers and employees of the board and certain specified persons free admission to and accommodation in a park. As the Act reads at present, free admission and accommodation is subject to the approval of the Minister of Agriculture in consultation with the Minister of Finance, but this, too, has over the years been allowed by the board in a selective manner. It is sometimes considered advisable to invite important overseas visitors to visit a park, and admission and accommodation must then be provided at short notice. It is therefore desirable that this matter be left in the hands of the board.

Another aspect for which provision is being made is the construction of fish ladders in weirs constructed in terms of the provisions of the Water Act by riparian owners across rivers the bed, or portion thereof, of which is situated within the boundaries of a park. It has been found that weirs which are higher than one meter curtail fish migration to such an extent that the fish life in that river is threatened with extinction. This problem occurs preeminently in the Crocodile River in the Kruger National Park. The amendment of section 21 which is being proposed therefore seeks to impose a duty on a riparian owner to refrain, when constructing a water work, from permanently preventing the upstream access of aquatic or amphibian animals. He shall, at the request of the board, take such steps as will, in the opinion of the board, make such access possible.

The remainder of the proposed amendments deal primarily with contraventions in a park and the question of onus of proof. Provision is also being made for it to be an offence to allow any other person to drive a motor vehicle in a park without a valid driver’s licence. A distinction is being drawn in regard to the meting out of punishment for serious and less serious contraventions in a park affecting the animal and plant life. In this way, for example, a heavier punishment will be imposed for the hunting or death of an animal than for damage to or destruction of a bird’s nest. Similarly a lighter punishment will be meted out for the removal of the seed of a tree than for the felling or cutting down of a tree or any other plant without permission. Furthermore, provision is being made to place the onus of proof in respect of any action which constitutes an offence under the Act, upon the accused. In this way, for example, where it has been proved in court that a person has had a carcase of an animal in his possession, he is deemed to have killed the animal unless he proves the contrary. Practical experience over years of application of the Act and problems experienced at the hearing of cases has given rise to these amendments which also meet with the support of the Department of Justice.

The expansion of the powers of the board to make regulations with the approval of the Minister of Agriculture is aimed at enabling the board to establish a body which will be able to institute an investigation into and adopt measures in regard to alleged offences by officers or employees of the board. Such a body will, inter alia, be concerned with investigations and action in the case of accidents in which vehicles of the board incur damage as a result of an offence by an officer or employee of the board.

Mr. Speaker, a look at the report of the National Parks Board of Trustees makes one realize what a fantastic asset South Africa has in these parks of ours, an asset which can not only give pleasure to all South Africans, but one which can also be used at all times to promote the essential tourist industry in South Africa. Sir, a look at that report shows very clearly how many South Africans and how many other tourists visit these parks annually. For example, one also sees in this report—I refer to the 1972-’73 report of the board—how many cars pass through these parks annually. This Bill is aimed at protecting, at all times, this asset of ours and we on this side of the House want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we shall support the Second Reading being taken, but I think that it is absolutely essential for clause 1 to be amended by the insertion of a definition in which the concept “disturbing of an animal in a park” be properly defined. Sir, one can scarcely believe that any person visiting a park would do anything, or would allow his guests or children to do anything, to disturb or injure animals in a park, either through negligence or by throwing stones or other objects at them, but apparently there are people who visit these parks from time to time, who apparently neither know how to behave themselves nor realize that South Africa is one of the few countries in the world where these animals are still to be found in their natural habitat and must be protected. Those people do not realize that if they disturb and alarm those animals they make it impossible for the next visitor, who would like to see those animals, to do so. One can scarcely believe that in our modern civilization there are still people who behave themselves in such a way that it is necessary to place legislation of this kind on the Statute Book. In the same way, Sir, it is almost impossible to believe that people who visit national parks will set traps to capture those animals or to maim or kill them. Actually, legislation of this kind is very much a blot on members of the public who apparently do not know how to behave themselves in such a place. If any deterrents can be introduced by the State or by the Minister to protect the flora and fauna in our parks, then we on this side shall support him. Sir, I am also pleased that a change is being effected in this measure as far as the objectives of such a park are concerned, and it is true that such a park is not only there to protect the fauna and flora, etc., but that such a park should also be of educational value for any visitor. I note from the report, which I mentioned, that the library in the Kruger Park is immensely popular with visitors and that there is a possibility that smaller libraries may also be established at the Kwagga Park at Cradock, the Bontebok Park at Swellendam and the Addo Park in the Eastern Cape. We hope that in the course of time the Minister and the board will see their way clear to establishing the same facilities at those places, if they are not already available there. I do not want to say anything about the composition of the board. The reason for this is obvious. The identity of the members of the board is just being stated more clearly.

But there is also a point that I find interesting, and that is the question of the charges that will be levied by the board. Apparently, in the past the board made the charges even without the approval of the Minister, or in consultation with him and with the Minister of Finance. Now we trust that when the board itself has the statutory power to do this in the future, they will constantly bear in mind that a visit to the parks has always been one of the cheapest holidays anyone can enjoy. Up to now it has been one of the cheapest holidays one could have. Whether in respect of those who go to camp there, or those who stay there, or those who go there with a caravan, I hope and trust that the board will never effect a change in this stage of affairs, but that it will remain as cheap as possible for the public.

The last point I want to raise, is the matter of the provision being made here for certain officials. We are now deleting from the legislation the grazing and agricultural facilities these people had, whereas other facilities in the park are being provided in their place. I know that there are some of these parks, such as the KalahariGemsbok Park, for example, that are far from the nearest town, and consequently there have been facilities for the officials to keep a few head of cattle for slaughter. I trust that for the sake of the convenience of those people themselves, the Minister will not change the situation entirely in that regard. Actually, it is difficult to believe that one could keep a few slaughter animals in a camp which also contains lions and leopars, but nevertheless, since these people live 120 to 150 miles from the nearest towns, I trust that the facilities they are provided with there, will continue to equal those they enjoyed in the past.

With these few words I want to say that we on this side of the House support the legislation at the Second Reading.

To anyone who believes as strongly as I do in the conservation of our wild life, this Bill must be supported. Accordingly, we in these benches support the principle of the Bill; in fact, we welcome it wholeheartedly. It is particularly gratifying to see the vastly increased variety of animals, birds, fish and plants enumerated in schedule 1 which are going to be protected. If anything, it is our feeling that these schedules should be extended to cover even more varieties of our fauna and flora which fall into the category of endangered species. We also welcome other provisions of the Bill which indicate a very praiseworthy awareness on the part of the Government that more needs to be done on a national scale in the whole field of the preservation of our wild life and in the field of national parks. These are a priceless asset, and conservation must be extended on a greater scale, even to the point of extending the whole scope of our national parks by encouraging the proclamation of more national parks. In all ways, except a minor one, we would support this Bill gladly. Regrettably, what would otherwise be a very praiseworthy Bill is being spoilt by one point, and that is the savage minimum sentences laid down for contraventions of section 30 of the original Act. We would like to say that maximum sentences, we believe, could be higher, and we go along with any suggestion that they should be. We believe that the sort of crime envisaged is a very serious crime indeed and one which we feel should be punished with the full vigour of the law. However, we do not approve of mandatory minimum sentences and we also disagree with corporal punishment. The minimum sentences should be left to the discretion of the court. There is no doubt at all that our courts can be relied on to assess mitigating factors and to punish accordingly up to the maximum level envisaged. We believe also that crude punishments like corporal punishment have no place in a modern civilized state. While in no way underestimating or disagreeing with the seriousness of the offence laid down in this Bill, we feel that penalties should firstly allow for discretion by the courts and also get away from corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is an out-dated form of revenge by society. It is a pity that an otherwise first-class Bill should be spoilt by penalties of this nature. We shall support this Bill at Second Reading, with a strong reservation that we do not like the forms of punishment. We shall move amendments accordingly. I would ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to revising the attitudes of his Government in this connection. Apart from this, however, this Bill is definitely a step in the right direction and it has our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I expected that there would be general support for this amendment Bill. It surely goes without saying that anyone with a love for nature, particularly in these times we are living in, when people really look forward to getting away from the waste land of the cities, and particularly when emphasis is laid on the beneficial effect life in the open air has on people, will welcome this Bill. I cannot but agree with the hon. gentleman. I also appreciate their support for this Bill. I think it is a matter of course that these tributes be paid. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Newton Park agrees with us in regard to the details, particularly in regard to the problems that arise as a result of offences being committed. Probably he has also looked at the annual report, although he did not mention it here.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Since he is discussing the report, may I just ask whether members may also receive those reports in the future to obviate the necessity for their having to go specially to a library or elsewhere to read them.

Mr. Speaker, I shall go into the matter. I do not know what expense this would involve for the Parks Board. I understand the necessity for this but it does of course involve heavy expenses. If we want to keep the admission fees low, we should prune expenses where we can. I shall go into the matter; in my opinion this is a meritorious request. I just want to look at what is stated in Table II on page 14 of the report. There were 1 716 White and 114 Bantu offenders. This was during the year covered by the report, viz. 1.4.1972 to 31.3.1973. R34 000 in fines was paid by Whites while Bantu paid R12 000. The amendments to this Bill are essential, inter alia, to protect animals and the report mentions the following animals killed in that year by poachers: Four impala, two kudu, a few blue wildebeest. The fishes in particular, suffered. Three .22 rifles had to be confiscated. Among the other weapons used, were two assegais, two axes, 202 traps and 20 fishing lines and hooks. All were confiscated. This proves that there is a fairly substantial onslaught on the fauna in that park. That is why it is necessary for effective steps to be taken. I am pleased to see that the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to increase the maximum penalty, at least. We feel almost the same about the matter. When it comes to the minimum, I, as a practical farmer and also as a father, just want to tell him: We should not like to put them in prison and impose heavy penalties, but if we warm their behinds now and again, understanding comes to the fore. I just want to put this to the hon. member as a practical person. The minimum punishment has always been left to the discretion of the courts. A minimum sentence is not provided for here. If it is necessary, then this is perhaps the best that can be done. For that reason I shall not insist very strongly on our removing this clause from the legislation. It may be necessary. I may just tell the hon. member that I know from experience that the relationship between the White employer and the non-White employee is more easily disturbed when a fine is imposed on the employee instead of his being given a few strokes that will not hurt him. This is simply a question of the make-up of the people we are dealing with.

I do not feel happy about it.

I know that the hon. member for Houghton does not agree with me in principle, although she herself, as a mother, has probably applied it.

As far as the educational institutions and their expansion to other parks are concerned—we shall have to leave this to the wisdom of the board. As the need arises, it will probably become necessary. I agree with the hon. member that if we can make the parks as pleasant as possible, their drawing power and educational value will be even greater.

I have already referred to the determination of charges. We agree with him in that regard and since we have board members in this House, I am convinced that they have received the message directly and will convey it to the Parks Board. I know from experience that it is their objective to keep the charges as low as possible. The hon. member said that we should never change the charges, but I can assure him that we can agree here that this will never be the case. As a result of the escalation of expenses, the charges simply must be increased.

They must be kept as cheap as possible.

I agree whole-heartedly with the hon. member that they should be kept as cheap as possible.

As far as the farming privileges are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that it really sounds peculiar for it to be provided in the legislation that farming privileges be granted to officers of the Parks Board. This is an historical development; we had to have this arrangement before. As a result of circumstances these people had, for example, to keep a milch-cow or a few sheep. However, we are gradually rectifying this. Modem means of transport, modem traffic, makes it possible for this amendment to be effected. The hon. member may rest assured that it is the aim of the Director and the Parks Board to manage the parks in such a way as to keep the employees as happy as possible. This will therefore be taken thoroughly into account.

I think that I have now replied to all the points that have been raised. I just want to convey my thanks to the Director of the Parks Board for the exceptional services he has rendered. I want to thank him specially, particularly since this year he has attained his 21st year of service. I also want to thank the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, under whose jurisdiction the national parks fall, for the exceptional way in which he handles the Parks Board. The unanimity that exists there is directly reflected in the co-operation we receive in all spheres from the management of the parks.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the penalties which are regarded necessary to give effect to the intentions of the Bill, which are of course to help with the development of national parks, to ensure effective control and to ensure the protection of the wild life in those parks. These are intentions with which hon. members on this side of the House, and I think on all sides of the House, are fully in accord. I believe, however, that we should look at the provisions for penalties which are proposed in this clause and not let our enthusiasm for nature conservation cause us to ran foul of basic principles in regard to what is acceptable in respect of the trial and sentence of persons who contravene the law. I believe this clause has two faults. The first is that there is provision for maximum sentences, both as regards fines and imprisonment. Secondly, the maximum sentences are inadequate and should be reviewed. There are a large number of aspects of this clause which deal with those two principles, viz. the imposition of a minimum sentence and the question of what the maximum sentence should be. I have given to the hon. the Deputy Minister an amendment which I propose to move and, Sir, I believe you have a copy of it as well. This is a formidable list. There are 24 separate items in regard to this particular clause but they all have reference to the two points I wish to raise. It may be argued that this House has in the past accepted minimum sentences in regard to certain offences, but the Bill before us extends the scope of the animal or bird life which is protected and in respect of which these minimum penalties now become applicable. Whereas in respect of animals and, to a limited extent, birds, the minimum fine was previously R400, it is now provided in the new section 23(1) substituted by clause 12 that the penalties are to be extended to all animal and bird life referred to in the Second Schedule. I believe the hon. the Minister will agree with me that the minimum penalty may be construed as being excessive in respect of certain of the bird life which is now being included in the Second Schedule. I believe that what we should do is to go back to specifying a maximum penalty and leave it to the courts in cases of prosecutions to apply that maximum penalty. If one looks at the new section 23(3) one sees that there is provision for a fine of not less than R50 and not more than R200. I believe Parliament would be indicating its feeling to the courts if we removed the minimum fine and merely increased the maximum fine to R500. As far as the imprisonment in default of payment is concerned, instead of providing for imprisonment for from one month to three months as proposed in the Bill, there should be provision for imprisonment for a maximum period of six months. I am sure that my colleagues in the legal profession here in this House today will agree that it is desirable to indicate to the courts the gravity with which Parliament views a misdemeanour by providing for a maximum fine or term of imprisonment to be imposed rather than to fetter the courts by stipulating what the minimum should be.

I trust you do not wish me to read the list of amendments before you, Sir, because right through these amendments deal with the various minimum and maximum sentences. What I am, in effect, moving is to delete all references to minimum sentences and, in so far as the maximum sentences are concerned, to substitute, for example, R2 000 for R800 and three months for two months, or R500 for R100, etc. In order to save a lengthy discussion on these matters, I wish to refer to the notice which is in the hands of the hon. the Deputy Minister. That makes it clear how I wish to apply the principle throughout this clause. There is one question I should like to raise in regard to my amendments. All the amendments deal with the principal Act. I submit, Sir, that in terms of the wording of the Bill before us, i.e. “the following section is hereby substituted for Section 23 of the principal Act”, etc., the whole of the field covered by this amendment is material to the debate and that an amendment of the provisions of the principal Act is competent to be discussed. It is also competent to be discussed because of the fact that these penalties under the proposed section 23(1) will be applicable to animals specified in the Second Schedule and not to those listed in the existing legislation.

In short, Sir, the feeling of this side of the House is that there is every justification for us to depart from the minimum sentences and to indicate the seriousness with which we view contraventions by increasing the maximum sentences. I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will see his way clear to accept these amendments which give effect to what I believe is the wish of hon. members on all sides of this House. I therefore wish to move—

1. (1) In lines 13 and 14, page 11, to omit “not less than four hundred rand and”;
2. (2) in line 14, page 11, to omit “eight hundred” and to substitute “two thousand”;
3. (3) in lines 16 and 17, page 11, to omit “not less than one year and”;
4. (4) in line 17, page 11, to omit “two” and to substitute “three”;
5. (5) in line 33, page 11, to omit “not less than one hundred rand and”;
6. (6) in line 34, page 11, to omit “five hundred” and to substitute “one thousand”;
7. (7) in line 36, page 11, to omit “not less than three months and”;
8. (8) in line 37, page 11, to omit “eighteen months” and to substitute “two years”;
9. (9) in line 50, page 11, to omit “not less than fifty rand and”;
10. (10) in line 50, page 11, to omit “two” and to substitute “five”;
11. (11) in lines 52 and 53, page 11, to omit “not less than one month and”;
12. (12) in line 53, page 11, to omit “three” and to substitute “six”;
13. (13) in lines 57 and 58, page 11, to omit “not less than one hundred rand and”;
14. (14) in line 58, page 11, to omit “four hundred” and to substitute “one thousand”;
15. (15) in lines 60 and 61, page 11, to omit “not less than three months and”;
16. (16) in line 61, page 11, to omit “six” and to substitute “twelve”;
17. (17) in line 13, page 13, to omit “not less than one hundred rand and”;
18. (18) in line 14, page 13, to omit “five hundred” and to substitute “one thousand”;
19. (19) in lines 15 and 16, page 13, to omit “not less than three months and”;
20. (20) in line 16, page 13, to omit “eighteen months” and to substitute “two years”;
21. (21) in line 30, page 13, to omit “not less than fifty rand and”;
22. (22) in line 31, page 13, to omit “two” and to substitute “five”;
23. (23) in lines 32 and 33, page 13, to omit “not less than one month and”; and
24. (24) in line 33, page 13, to omit “four” and to substitute “six”.

Order! I regret that I cannot accept amendments Nos. (1) to (8) as they relate to parts of the principal Act, which are not before the Committee. I intend putting the remaining 16 amendments as one.

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on that point?

I have already given my ruling.

Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member for Green Point not address you on this point before you give your final ruling?

Order! The hon. member for Green Point may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, my contention is that if one looks at the Bill before us, one will see stated there that: ’’the following section is hereby substituted for section 23.” If the Bill before us stated that section 23 was to be amended, I could agree with you, Sir, that we could only discuss the words which were to be introduced or left out. However, the Bill before us is clear on the point that it concerns the substitution of a new section. Therefore, I believe it is competent to look at this entire section because the whole content of the section is being changed. We are no longer dealing with the animals or birds specified there; we are now dealing with the application of these provisions to those animals and birds listed in the Second Schedule. I believe, Sir, that my amendments Nos. (1) to (8) are acceptable in that they deal with a new section which is to be introduced in the Act.

Order! My ruling is that in terms of Standing Order No. 58, only those parts of the section that are underlined can be discussed here, because the proposed amendments to the principal Act only relate to those parts of the section. Therefore I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendments numbered (1) to (8).

Mr. Chairman, may I address you on a point of order? The fact that certain words are underlined and others are in parentheses, is merely a guide for the members of this House. If in fact this Bill becomes law, the Act as it will be gazetted, will merely state: “The following section is hereby substituted for section 23 of the principal Act.” None of the underlinings and none of the brackets will appear. In fact, we are substituting a completely new section for the old section. The lines and parentheses are merely for the guidance of members. In those circumstances, Sir, I would ask you to reconsider your ruling in the light of what the hon. member for Green Point has said.

I wish to draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that when Standing Order No. 58 was introduced in 1963, the whole object was simply to confine discussion to the proposed amendments. The rest of the section is only published for the information of hon. members, and for no other reason. Hon. members can only discuss those parts which are in parentheses or are underlined.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has in fact put the amendments which I said in the Second Reading that we were going to put and I do not wish to repeat the arguments I advanced during the Second Reading debate. We, too, feel that maximum penalties could well be increased. However, we object strongly to the whole question of minimum sentences. Therefore, we would support the amendments put by the hon. member for Green Point, as I understand them, although I do not have details as to the extent of the maximum penalties in terms of his amendments.

However, we would like to go just a little further and deal with two further subsections. Subsection (5) allows for corporal punishment. I have expressed our attitude towards corporal punishment, and we would like to move an amendment to delete the provision for this sort of corporal punishment as part of the penalty. The same applies to subsection (6). Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to move the following amendments—

1. (1) To omit all the words after “fine” in line 20, page 13, up to and including “strokes” in line 25; and
2. (2) to omit all the words after “fine” in line 36, page 13, up to and including “strokes” in line 41.

In other words, we are asking the hon. the Deputy Minister to amend this clause so that corporal punishment will not take place for this sort of offence. We did note his comments after the Second Reading debate, that one must sometimes treat a child with the back of one’s hand or something like that, rather than impose a heavy fine. However, we believe that this is a bad thing in principle. We do not like this idea of corporal punishment, which we believe is an out-dated form of punishment in a modern State such as ours. My two amendments give effect to our attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to make the attitude of the official Opposition clear as far as this question of corporal punishment is concerned. One cannot say that corporal punishment per se is not necessarily an appropriate sentence in all circumstances and at all times. It is the view of this side of the House that the discretion of the courts, especially in regard to sentences, should not in any way be predetermined by anyone else. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances of each case, the court should have the discretion to decide what punishment should be imposed. There have been several examples today where we have pleaded for the court to retain its discretion. There are no two cases which are the same. I have known many cases in my own experience, as is the case with other hon. members who practise law, where the real and proper sentence for an offence would be a jolly good caning. However, those circumstances cannot be predetermined; they must be decided by the court. For those reasons we feel that the discretion of the court in regard to sentences, even in regard to a caning, should be retained. For these reasons we cannot support the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Green Point for having been so kind as to afford me an opportunity of looking at these amendments beforehand. I think this was very kind of him. But 24 amendments, and that in regard to a Bill dealing with the Parks Board! I just don’t know! His reasons are quite obscure to me. However, perhaps this is an honest attempt at improving this legislation. I honestly want to say that it is clear that these needs have emerged mainly as a result of court decisions and because it is very difficult to get a firm hold on these people. This Bill is, to my mind, a practical amendment of the Act, and for that reason I do not see my way clear to accepting these amendments. To me as a farmer, for that is my background and training, the whole argumentation is taking place here against a legal-philosophical background which could possibly be brought in in connection with another Act. If there is a difference in principle, we must argue about it and reach finality on it in a democratic manner. With the support of the courts and the support of the Department of Justice, I feel that we have a different dispensation of justice here, for the parks do not even fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial councils. We do not want to move too far away from the old traditions; we must have regard to them, too. In the olden days the authorities would normally have meted out the eight strokes. Now there are sophisticated jurists who are of the opinion that the offenders should not even be given a small fine. Cases are so easily being withdrawn and thrown out. I feel that here and there, at least, we can justify this kind of punishment in a practical manner. Sir, I do not wish to get involved in a juridical controversy; I am practical enough to know that one should stay out of the hands of advocates and attorneys.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation. He must realize that although he is responsible for the conservation of animal life, it does not mean that in his attempt to conserve animal life he must discard all civilized practices and leave penalties to the Department of Justice, which he is really suggesting because he says that he is only concerned with animal life and that we must talk about them to other people. After all, it is his Bill. Unfortunately this measure has been introduced in the dying hours of the session, but I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will see whether, with the assistance of the hon. the Minister of Justice, an amendment cannot be introduced next year to rectify the position in regard to penalties.

Sir, this is such a reasonable request that we shall look into it. We could also submit it to the Parks Board for their consideration. I am prepared to give the undertaking that we shall look into this matter, and, if necessary, we could introduce an amending measure next year.

On ninth to twentieth amendments moved by Mr. L. G. Murray,

Question put: That the words stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: J. M. Henning. A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendments dropped.

First amendment moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Twenty-first to twenty-fourth amendments moved by Mr. L. G. Murray negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Second amendment moved by Mr. R. J. Lorimer negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to (Progressive Party dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

Although there is difference of opinion on the meting out of punishment, all of us are at least agreed as far as the pleasant atmosphere of our parks is concerned, and we are also agreed that when offences take place, especially those committed by destructive people, the offenders must be brought to account and punished. I am also convinced that all of us are agreed that the administration of these parks must be carried out properly. In order to bring this about, legislation has been introduced. I am grateful that the Bill has been passed, for it will very definitely help us to realize properly the objectives I outlined.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Hon. members are aware that the Hotel Board was established during 1965 to foster the development and improvement of accommodation establishments with a view to achieving and maintaining the highest possible standards in the quality of the accommodation, meals and services provided by such establishments. In carrying out its functions and duties and in exercising its powers, the Hotel Board has for the past nine years been engaged daily in implementing and applying the Hotels Act, 1965. In this process it has become clear that a few minor vet important amendments and corrections have become necessary so as to enable the Hotel Board to pursue in a purposeful manner the objects stated in the Act and to realize them to an ever greater extent.

The provisions of this legislation are really of a dual nature. The first is reaching agreement between the object of the Hotel Board on the one hand and, on the other hand, its functions and powers. At present there is a slight yet troublesome difference between the above-mentioned objects of the Hotel Board on the one hand and the functions and powers of the board on the other. The functions and duty of the board are to endeavour to achieve the object for which it was established with all the means at its disposal For the purpose of achieving that object the board shall, subject to the provisions of the Hotels Act. No. 70 of 1965, have the power, inter alia, to adopt such measures as it may consider necessary or desirable to achieve and maintain a satisfactory standard in the quality of the accommodation and service provided by hotels.

Hon. members will notice that while there is mention of accommodation, meals and service in respect of the object of the Hotel Board, mention is only made of housing and service under the functions and powers of the board. In this regard it appears to be desirable to bring the definition of the prescribed functions and powers of the Hotel Board into line with the objectives or objects of the board. I am convinced that the omission of the word “meals” in section l(4)(d) occurred through an oversight, and that what the legislature had in mind was in fact that the Hotel Board should also have the power to adopt such measures as it may consider necessary or desirable to achieve and maintain a satisfactory standard in the quality of the meals provided in hotels. Hon. members will agree with me that the quality of meals at hotels is an aspect which causes a certain amount of concern and in respect of which there has recently been some deterioration in specific cases. Since the Hotel Board works in very close co-operation with the trade for the development and improvement of accommodation establishments and related matters, it is necessary to have complete clarity on the powers of the Hotel Board in this regard.

The second clause of the Bill actually deals with the proposed deletion of the proviso in regard to the registration of hoteliers. Unless a person for whose registration application is made is disqualified in terms of the regulations from being registered as an hotelier, the Board shall upon receipt of such application forthwith register such person as the hotelier of the hotel in question. However, at the moment there is a proviso to section 23(3) in terms of which the disqualification prescribed by regulation only applies in a case of an application for registration as hotelier of an hotel in which the board has a financial interest. This has the effect that the board is prevented in terms of the existing proviso from prescribing disqualifications by regulation regarding the registration of persons as hoteliers in hotels in which the board has no financial interest. This does in any case apply in respect of most hotels.

The definition of “hotelier” in Act No. 70 of 1965 in relation to an hotel, means the natural person charged with the management of such hotel. In cases where application is made for the registration of the same person as the hotelier of more than one hotel at the same time, especially where such hotels are situated in separate centres and are relatively far removed from each other physically, it appears to be almost impossible for the same person to manage the said hotels effectively at the same time. Consequently this has the effect that the spirit of section 1 of the Act may be circumvented in this respect, i.e. as long as the proviso to section 23 remains.

I want to conclude by giving hon. members the assurance that in spite of the proposed amendment the Hotel Board will still be prepared, in exceptional and motivated cases, to agree to the registration of the same person as the hotelier of a group of two or more hotels. However, to my mind the board should have the power to exercise its discretion in this regard. It is with the above-mentioned objects in mind that the deletion of the proviso to section 23(3) of the principal Act is being proposed. Through this step the Hotel Board will not be acquiring any improper power since the right of appeal to the Minister of Tourism in terms of section 22 of the Act will continue to exist in respect of the application of a person as an hotelier.

Mr. Speaker, I hasten to assure the hon. the Minister that we shall support this Bill. The first clause is rectifying an omission and I suppose we on this side of the House must accept portion of the blame for not having noticed that omission at the time it was debated, viz. in 1965. Anyway, all’s well that ends well.

Regarding clause 2 of the Bill and the provision which will allow the hon. the Minister to prescribe regulations to limit the person who may be the natural person charged with the management of the hotel—in other words, the qualifications for the hotelier—I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that we support it. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is going beyond the normal demand when he says that he requires this power to limit the number of persons who can be the hotelier. I want to suggest to him, however, that he should perhaps look a little bit further into this matter. In particular, I want to suggest that he should consult with his colleague the hon. the Minister of Justice with a view, particularly in licensed premises, to having the hotelier and the licence, in terms of the Liquor Act, the same person. This divided control very often leads to trouble, it also leads to malpractices. I do not believe that I have to go into detail of malpractices, but I do suggest that the hon. the Minister should bear this in mind in future.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the co-operation of that side of the House. It often happens that the hotelier who is registered in terms of the Hotels Act is not the same person as the licensed person in terms of the Liquor Act. However, in many cases this is the same person—although the duties and responsibilities imposed on persons in terms of the Liquor Act differ from those imposed on persons in terms of the Hotels Act. I am, however, constantly in contact with my colleague who is administering the Liquor Act, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that we do consult together on this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, last night I indicated that we could not support this Bill and the provision to include preprimary schools in the definition of a school. The argument that this is required for financial aid does not hold water, because I believe that if the Minister brought amendments to other legislation he would in fact be in a position to give financial assistance. In respect of those nursery schools controlled by the provinces the answer is quite clear, namely that if the Central Government can provide greater financial assistance that problem can be overcome.

I want to deal with the second major principle, namely teachers’ training which is provided for in clauses 2, 7 and 8. Here we encounter amendments which vindicate the past attitude of this side of the House. In fact, it condemns the Government for having embarked in the past on unrealistic schemes. The tragedy is that while we can congratulate ourselves justifiably on our wisdom of the past, there happens to be a real loser in all this. The tragedy is that the real loser is education as a result of the mistakes of the Government. You will recall that in 1969, the Act was amended as a result of the Gericke Commission of Inquiry into Teachers’ Training. If you look at the Act you will find that in terms of section 2 it was decided that the training of White persons as teachers for secondary schools should take place at a university only. That was it. At that time, when hon. members on this side tried to move the proviso which the hon. Minister is now putting forward, we were ruled out of order, because it was against the principle of the Act. Nevertheless, at last, we have the proviso which will rectify that mistake. At that time we had objections in principle and also as regards to the whole practicability of this scheme. Questions whether the universities were in a position to cater for the training of all secondary school teachers were left unanswered at the time. The questions whether departments and faculties would be prepared to teach at the level of three and four year diploma courses were also left unanswered. At that particular time we had the Gericke Commission. The now Minister of Economic Affairs then submitted a minority report in which he stated that he could not agree with all the findings of the commission. I want to read the following extract from his minority report:

The majority report at the time questioned the whole idea of an institute. The fact remains that there were certain universities which did not even have a faculty of education. Despite this the Government rushed in to this scheme and we have already had legislation making certain facilities of colleges available. We welcome the proviso in this particular clause. However, this is a particular instance of how the Government has made mistakes by taking over-hasty steps. The provincial departments will also obviously welcome the fact that the National Education Council no longer has the right of veto over any arrangement between the Minister and the Administrator when it comes to the arrangements in regard to the training of secondary school teachers at training colleges maintained by the provinces because “on the advice of the council” is omitted. Needless to say, that when the main Act was introduced we did move an amendment such as this one. We objected. The price we have paid for the stubbornness of the Government in the past was that certain provinces were for four years prevented from training certain categories of secondary school teachers, especially teachers taking certain three-year courses. Of course they were phased out. Now we have had the Van Wyk de Vries Commission’s report which has been tabled. With reference to section 1(a)(3), which is not amended it is stated that:

*It refers to what is being provided for here—and I quote from section 3—

As it has been put by the Minister—

Do you support the recommendations of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission?

The hon. the Minister came along and told us in his Second Reading speech last night that, as a result of the insertion of clause 4, it would bring about such close co-operation. The insertion of clause 4 is now going to create three groups; there is no longer going to be just the polarization between the colleges and the universities, but there will be the Minister as well. Then three parties will be involved in the matter.

I want to refer to clauses 5 and 6, which deal with the National Education Council. Here drastic changes are being made. The total reconstitution of the council is being proposed, and I want to make it clear that once again there are many changes which are actually improvements, viz. the fact that the National Education Council is going to consist of 21 members instead of 29, the fact that the executive committee is going to be part-time and no longer full-time, and the fact that one section of it will not deal with teacher training only, while the other section concerns itself solely with recommendations in regard to schools. These are changes and improvements which we have spelled out previously. The question we have to pose, however, is whether the constitution of this council is such that it is able to perform the functions it is expected to perform. The constitution is there fore in large measure tied up with the functions the council has to perform. An analysis of the functions clearly indicates that the council serves a dual purpose: Firstly, it advises the Minister in regard to policy in respect of schools and universities; and, secondly, the council fulfils the task of a professional teachers’ council. In other words, the prestige and status of the teaching profession must be upheld by this council. In clause 6(3)(c). on page 8, we notice that the council endeavours—

It is a typical function of a professional council. If the hon. the Minister does not agree with me, let me quote to him what was said by his predecessor, according to Hansard (Vol. 26, col. 5559). I quote:

In other words, there can be no doubt that this council was established to serve a dual purpose. Now we also find that the composition of 1969 was unable to do justice to this function. Has the hon. the Minister ever heard of a professional council consisting only of ex officio members, or that the members representing that profession do not have the right to elect any member to that council? Now, I know that the hon. the Minister is going to tell us that he will establish a professional council at a later stage. I want to tell him, however, that we have heard this story so many times from every Minister of National Education in South Africa that it has now become hachneyed. If a council is in fact going to be established, we should have liked to have seen it first before any of these changes are effected. In the meantime we have the position that the teaching profession has to be satisfied with a second-rate council. How long, I am asking the hon. the Minister, do the teachers then have to suffer one slap in the face after the other in their endeavour to obtain professional status? In 1969 the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations, representing 40 000 teachers, was given a slap in the face. They were granted two members but, as it was put at that time, “after consultation with the federal council”. What is happening today? From the new suggestions made by the hon. the Minister it is evident that he has so little confidence in this federal council that he is not even prepared to consult it as to whom the members serving in the National Education Council should be. He is going to appoint them himself. There are many former teachers on that side of the House. I believe it is time that they also should get up and be counted for their profession.

Let us consider the question of upholding the status. They are not only expected to uphold the status of the profession, but we find that the council also has to advise the Minister in regard to teacher training—again, this is a function which must definitely be fulfilled by a professional council. I can quote for the hon. the Minister from Hansard (Vol. 26, col. 5562), where his predecessor submitted that one of the objects of the council would be to give advice, and furthermore—

Surely, one would have expected provision to have been made for principals of teacher colleges in this council. The vast majority of teachers are being trained at teacher colleges, which are controlled by the provinces. In the past it was possible for two to be nominated from each province after consultation with the Administrators. This meant that the director, as well as one principal of a teacher college, was nominated. But nowhere provision is being made for this. This is possible in terms of the old constitution. Provision is in fact being made for two rectors or principals of universities, and for four lecturers. But all of them are appointed by the hon. the Minister. Why can they not be appointed by the Committee of University Principals? In terms of the legislation which is being introduced here, the task performed by the University Advisory Committee in the past under Act 61 of 1955, will now be taken over. We notice that the new article (bA) is being inserted here, which means that the council will also act in an advisory capacity as far as universities are concerned. I now want to quote from the Van Wyk de Vries Report. “If there is one point on which agreement exists, it is that something is wrong with the functioning of the UAC”, the University Advisory Committee, in other words the committee established under Act 61 of 1959. A new council is being proposed, which will be called the Advisory Council on Universities. The commission has the following to say about this—

The constitution of this council is subsequently dealt with, as follows—

Now the hon. the Minister is going to make use of his National Education Council to advise him in respect of universities on account of the provisions relating to higher education in terms of section 17 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. If the hon. the Minister requires any advice in respect of higher education, as defined in legislation relating to universities, the hon. the Minister may make use of the University Advisory Committee, the functions of which are as follows—

How is it possible for the hon. the Minister to come along with legislation and to delegate a function to the National Education Council, a function the council will then have to perform, and which will be in conflict with a function performed by the UAC in the past? The Van Wyk de Vries Commission suggests that it can be better carried out by an advisory council on university affairs. Sir, there is something wrong because why was the university Advisory Committee not functioning? It is stated in the Van Wyk de Vries Report—

Sir, for that reason I said at the outset that the hon. the Minister is introducing legislation here which, in our opinion, do not comply with our requirements for education, especially where we are dealing herewith a National Education Council which not only has to advise the Minister on education, but have to fulfil the task of a professional education council as well. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to take my word for it, I want to remind him that his predecessor made this quite clear. But the way in which this body is being constituted it cannot even qualify as a professional council, because it is composed only of persons nominated by the hon. the Minister; not one elected member is serving on this body. In other words, this is a council which tries to fulfil a task for which it is not really qualified. Sir, it took the Van Wyk de Vries Commission six years to submit a report, and then they made certain recommendations, but what do we find now? What will the position be if this amendment of the hon. the Minister is accepted?

†The position will be that this council will also usurp the powers of the proposed advisory university council, which was suggested in the report of the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. It is true, Sir, that the Minister is doing a number of things here for which we have asked in the past, but it is interesting to note that in clause 4 the Minister is in fact proposing that legislation may be introduced in the House or in the Other Place without first having obtained the views of the executive committee thereon. This is something which we have opposed in the past, and yet the Minister is doing it again here today. In the past we have even taken points of order to find out whether this particular type of legislation has in fact been put to the members of the executive; whether they have actually seen it and whether it was competent to introduce that legislation in this House. Sir, this whole clause as it stands here is something with which we cannot agree, but at least the Minister is slowly but surely starting to improve the situation. Although he is doing all these things, he is still not bold enough to take the initiative and produce legislation of which we can be proud.

Mr. Speaker, although I want to congratulate the hon. member for Durban Central on the fact that he is now, officially, the main speaker of the United Party on education, I nevertheless find it regrettable that there should be a person in that position who is only negative, and who cannot say anything positive on educational matters. Yesterday evening the hon. member had a great deal to say here about how they in the United Party “have a very high regard for education”, and he also intimated that certain amendments were being proposed in this Bill which they would gladly support. I do not want to find fault with the way in which he wants to present his speech—that is his own business—but since we are discussing education here, we would really have liked to have heard a positive note from that hon. member. Today he was in fact intent on making petty political gain from a matter which is to a very great extent above politics. Sir, the hon. member’s predecessor in that position, Mr. Flippie Moore, a man for whom he had a very high regard in this House, a man with a fine sense of humour and a fine instinct for educational matters, always made a very positive contribution on education, and I hope that the hon. member for Durban Central, in his position as official main speaker of the United Party on educational matters, will grow in his position, and that we will in future hear a more positive note from him.

This Bill, as has been indicated, contains three important main points, three important amendments to the present Act. Firstly, we are dealing with changes in regard to the training of teachers. In the past, under the 1969 Act, teachers for secondary schools could only be trained at universities. The hon. member for Durban Central claimed that in certain provinces it had for four years not been possible to train teachers in certain subjects. I cannot understand that. I serve on the university council in Port Elizabeth, and we received permission from the hon. the Minister to train those teachers in co-operation with other institutions a long time ago. Be it as it may, it was a problem in the previous Act, and it is now being remedied, so that there is now a principle of co-operation between university and a college, whether a teachers’ training college or a college for advanced technical education. That principle is now being woven into this Bill. I should like to welcome that principle very cordially. I believe that it will usher in a new era in our tertiary education, and will also usher in a new era as far as our teacher training is concerned.

Teacher training should be seen as a matter of broad national importance. It is not a matter which can be seized upon by small groups to proclaim their particular ideologies or build their own empires. This is a task of broad national interest and the maxim which ought to apply when it comes to the training of teachers is that the greatest efficiency should be achieved at the minimum cost. We are very grateful that we have in fact been able, under the National Party Government, to spend enormous amounts on education, and we are very proud of our educational institutions. We can boast throughout the world of the educational institutions which we have today, but we are a small nation, and we should not waste money on any duplication of facilities. It has, to a very large extent, been the case up to now that one had parallel institutions with the same objectives. I want to mention the example of Port Elizabeth. During the past few years a beautiful university has come into being on one of the most attractive campuses in the world, on the sea-front, which cost the taxpayers millions of rands. Adjoining the university there is a college for advanced technical education, also a beautiful building, and this also cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. Now a teachers training college is also under construction, but unfortunately, although that college could also have been built adjoining the university, which could have resulted in wonderful co-operation between the university and these two colleges, that college is now being built some distance away, and this makes co-operation a little impossible physically. But what we really want, and what is woven into this Bill, is that a university may now, when it is dealing with teacher training, send its students for their practical, vocational-oriented subjects, to the college for advanced technical education, to receive their training there. If it is not yet being interpreted in this way in this Bill, I hope we will get see this co-operation developing in future between the training college and the university, and the student who wishes to go to university for his primary education receiving his academic training there, yet still being able to enjoy his professional and practical teaching experience at a teachers’ training college because there will be very close co-operation between the two. Therefore I want to welcome this section of the Bill, which makes provision for this close co-operation, very cordially. This is also stated in the Van Wyk De Vries Report on page 222—

I am in full agreement with this. I am in full agreement with what is said here, for I have been advocating it for quite a few years. Last year in California I saw that this matter functions in the following way: There are community colleges which students attend first, and from there they are advanced to the university. I should like to endorse this cordially.

The second principle contained in this measure is the change in respect of the National Education Council. It is true that the National Education Council was a body which had a very important task to fulfil. It had to help ensure the smooth functioning of the new dispensation of 1969 so that there would be as few problems and irritations as possible. I believe that the Education Council has fulfilled a very important task, and one has appreciation for the very valuable advice which it gave the hon. the Minister. The situation has, however, arisen that particularly as far as the advice in respect of the national education policy is concerned, the Education Council has completed its task. The question had therefore to be posed whether the Education Council still had a task, whether it should continue to exist, whether it should be abolished, or whether it should continue to exist in an amended form. The hon. the Minister decided that it should continue to exist in an amended or reduced form, and I believe that this was due in particular to the insistence of the teachers’ corps which felt that the council offered them an important opportunity to serve under the same body with their heads of education in the field of education. It was then decided that this body should be reconstituted. Personally I believe that in view of the task which has been entrusted to them this body even now, is a little clumsy. I think a body of seven members would perhaps have functioned far more ably. However, I think the hon. the Minister had his reasons for deciding that the body shall in future still consist of 19 or 21 members. In my opinion the body will in future function far more smoothly. I am very grateful that the members of the council will now serve in a part-time capacity, and will not be drawn from the field of education on a full-time basis. Practical education will still be able to make use of their services.

I proceed next to deal with the last important amendment which is contained in the Bill, viz. the principle of the official recognition of pre-primary education. Yesterday evening the hon. member for Durban Central enumerated a long list of problems, as a result of which the official Opposition cannot support the Bill. In the course of my speech I shall try to get round to refuting some of these objections. In other countries of the world a considerable degree of attention has already been paid to this phase of a child’s development, viz. his infant stage, from three to six years. In Israel and Australia a great deal of research has been done in this connection, and large sums of money are being spent by the State to assist the schools. In communist countries, mothers are compelled to work, and the children are therefore subjected to ideological indoctrination during this age period. The education of the child between its third and sixth year are regarded by the communist countries as being the most important phase. I think it was Beria who said: “Give me a child between his third and his sixth year, and I shall turn him into a convinced communist for the rest of his life.” In the United States of America the late President Kennedy commenced an extensive scheme for pre-primary education. They established the so-called Head-start Programme, also called the American Economic Opportunity Programme, and poured as much as three billion dollars per annum into this part of their education. Their idea is by means of the programme to help children from poorer homes to have an equal chance compared with children who come from better homes.

In South Africa we have not up to now done very much in this sphere. It has, to a large extent, been left to private initiative. I want to say at once that I have the greatest respect for, and wish to convey the greatest appreciation to, certain organizations and bodies, particularly women’s organizations, throughout the country who made a start with day-care centres, nursery schools and pre-primary schools, and who, motivated purely by a service motive in the true sense of the word, have done excellent work. However, there has also been major exploitation of the public in this sphere. The public has been exploited by private persons and bodies who began such schools and who, from a purely profit motive, spent the minimum on the children and obtained the maximum from the parents, without any educational control over their activities. There are people who tell me that, up to now, one of the easiest ways of making money has been to establish such a day-centre and to advertise. The parent are only too grateful for the service which was being rendered. According to statistics it appears that between 25% and 30% of the mothers of infants who attend schools are, working full-time. In urban areas, and particularly in certain communities, the percentage is, of course, far higher. It is sometimes as high as 60%. The mothers are only too grateful to have a place where they can leave their children in the morning and fetch them again in the evening. There has not always been proper control, and the money paid, has not been controlled. In this way large sums of money have been paid, while the children were frequently left to untrained and unsympathetic people, with the result that no educational work was really done. For that reason country-wide requests were addressed to the Minister, to the administrators and to member of Parliament for something to be done in regard to this important phase of education. I do not think that any nation can afford, in the times in which we are living, in which we are wagging a struggle for the spirit of mankind, to afford to leave their children to the mercies of other people during what is in fact the most receptive period in their lives, the period between their third and sixth years. For that reason we are very grateful for the Bill. However, I regret very much the fact that my hon. colleague on the opposite side of the House was so negative in respect of this aspect. A great need exists, and now the matter can be recognized on an official level. Although there is no compulsory education, this type of education is being recognized on an official level, and it shall be subsidized. This is a great step forward which is now being taken. The head of an institution which trains nursery school teachers told me this morning that this step is the greatest step in the sphere of education which has been taken during the past 50 years. If people react to this in such a manner, I think that it is a very important matter to them. The hon. member for Durban Central said that they were unable to support it because, as he put it, “we do not want to be ruled from Pretoria”. But my goodness me, surely it is not the Minister who will control preprimary education from Pretoria; surely it goes to the provinces. How far does the hon. member wish to decentralize it then? Does the hon. member want the municipalities to have to do it?

Do you not know what this involves?

Yes, I know what it involves, but does the hon. member know what it involves for him? For him it is a matter of petty politics. For him it is a matter of the national education policy being applicable. That is what the hon. members fears; that education should be Christian; that it should be offered on a broad national level; and that it should be mother-tongue education. That is what the hon. member is opposed to. The hon. member does not want those principles to be applied; he wants children to continue to be left to the mercies of certain people, for he is not interested in education.

In conclusion I want to say that we welcome this Bill sincerely, and that we, on our part, give this Bill our sincere and cordial support.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa seemed a little excited. He seemed to think that our contribution, particularly the contribution of the hon. member for Durban Central, stemmed from “kleinlike politiek”. I am a little sceptical of his analysis. Although he claims to be on the council of the University of Port Elizabeth, he does not seem to be aware that training colleges have been phasing out the training of students in certain courses. I would refer him for his enlightenment to the report of the National Education Council for 1971 when the deadline was set for 1 January 1972 in that regard. I disagree with the hon. member for Algoa. I think that the hon. member for Durban Central made a positive contribution and analysed succinctly the problems that underlie our educational system.

The hon. the Minister has placed before this House a Bill which in his mind is a sincere effort to solve the difficulties he faces in education. While we may accept the hon. the Minister’s goodwill, there are fundamental differences of principle and philosophy that are threatened by certain of the amendments contained in the hon. the Minister’s proposals in this Bill that we on this side of the House cannot accept. These principles underlie the very ethos of our existence to which all of us in this House and in the Western world adhere. I refer to the freedom to choose our existence without interference in the freedom of others. This ability flows from the type of education we receive. Where this is circumscribed and authoritarian the result is a rigid and canalized citizen. The United Party opposed the present Act in 1967 and the amending Bill in 1969 on the grounds that sound educational principles were being ignored. Now, in 1974, we see no reason to change our minds over the amendments in the Act as contained in this Bill. The crux of the whole problem in education that confronts the hon. the Minister rests in the motivation of the teaching profession. This motivation was correctly outlined by Senator De Klerk, who as Minister of Education, in 1967 said in Hansard of 20 February 1967, col. 1585:

Do you believe in that?

Yes, we must, because this is the right motivation as expressed by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. This attitude exactly interprets the aspirations of all teachers. They are professionally trained and they perform their task magnificently under wearying circumstances. Like doctors, dentists, lawyers and engineers, teachers are proud of their profession. They desire and deserve to have similar rights, such as registration and the discipline of members, as do these other professions, through a teacher professional council. They saw in this Bill an opportunity for the hon. the Minister to confirm these expectations. They recall the words of the hon. the Minister’s predecessor which I have referred to.

We in the United Party would also have anticipated this Bill to reinforce the principle in the Act as the previous Minister intended to do. In fact, his intention is printed in subsection (3)(c) of clause 5 of the Bill which reads that the council “shall also endeavour to uphold and promote respect for education as also for the teaching profession and the prestige of persons engaged in the teaching profession”. Although service conditions and salaries of teachers have been improved, I cannot say that respect and prestige for the teaching profession have been enhanced to the degree that they should have been. The cardinal principle of self-determination has never been applied and no matter what theories are expounded, until teachers largely control their profession in practice, the desired objectives cannot be achieved because this principle is ignored. Therefore, we hold out little hope that the amendments we are asked to approve will improve the educational milieu and we fear that the hon. the Minister will unfortunately be faced with the same failure as his predecessor.

I should like at this stage to remind the House of the proud words spoken by the ex-Minister on 20 February 1967. He said (Hansard, col. 1575):

Now, these words were full of proud anticipation, but the United Party did not share the Minister’s elation. We refused to vote in favour of this Act, but our reservations went unheeded.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to this Bill.

I am coming to the Bill right now, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member has said a number of things which are not in the Bill.

I am saying, Sir, that because of the scrapping of much of the present Act by these amendments, we see that these fears were justified. The ex-Minister used the words “probably the most important milestone” and we feel that these milestone provisions have been rejected and become a millstone to sink these same provisions. The Act has not been a panacea of the problems anticipated in education; it has not solved South Africa’s education problems …

Order! The hon. member must observe my ruling.

The core of this National Education Policy Amendment Bill revolves round clause 5.

That is right.

To completely reconstitute the National Advisory Council is an admission of previous failure, but the new constitution has little better chance of success. The function of the National Education Council, as stated in subsection (3Xc) of clause 5 is to uphold and promote respect for education and the prestige of persons engaged in the teaching profession as well as to advise the Minister in regard to general policy. To achieve these ends, the Minister proposes these unusual changes. He gives heads of departments and university members equal representation. The universities have no responsibility for education in schools, yet they will be given an equal voice in fields of education in which they do not operate. He removes from the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations their previous right to appoint members to represent English and Afrikaans-speaking teachers’ associations. This Federal Council is a highly respected body and is the only one to which English and Afrikaans-speaking teachers’ associations in the Republic belong. Now it is being completely ignored. Yet teachers’ associations are still to be asked to send two representatives. I can see that this is going to be a very difficult election.

But the Minister appoints them.

The hon. the Minister … [Interjections.] … has made an effort to streamline the council and make it more efficient by reducing the number of members and including more educationists. However, the executive, the body that holds the power, presents a completely different picture. The present executive comprises seven in number, three of whom are required to have a special knowledge of teacher training—this is a good provision because it ensures that the Minister has specialists to advise him—and yet what do we find in the amendment? The proposed executive is reduced to five members, four of whom could be Ministerial nominees of whom no special educational qualifications are required. In other words, the hon. Minister has increased his control over the executive while at the same time freeing himself from any obligation to appoint persons who have distinguished themselves in the field of education.

Such a lack of principle is quite unacceptable and detrimental to the present Act. In no way can this proposal be interpreted by the teaching profession as fulfilling the function of the executive to uphold and promote respect for education. Does the Minister really wish this side of the House to accept the sincerity of this proposal—when we see that he does not have to listen to the advice of the executive? In such circumstances, it hardly matters who is on the executive or what their qualifications are. We ask the House: Is this a responsible attitude? How can we be expected to accept that the training of teachers will be improved when the advisers of the Minister need no longer have a special knowledge of teacher training?

There is another principle which is omitted and this is something which we find unsatisfactory. I refer to the absence of representatives from the training colleges in the proposed reconstituted Advisory Council. The hon. the Minister, in terms of clause 2 of this Bill, is re-extending to the colleges the right to train teachers. An impossible position has been reached as a result of shortages in certain teaching subjects, specifically in mathematics and science. This position has forced this measure on the Minister. The figure at my disposal indicates that 56% of teachers are trained in colleges. Yet it is strange that the hon. the Minister has given the colleges no voice in the National Education Council. We believe that this is an illogical omission.

My final comment on the proposed reconstituted Council is to inquire why the Bantu, Indian and Coloured groups are not given representation. Representatives of these groups already sit on the Joint Matriculation Board.

Order! That is not relevant now.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to discuss those authoritarian measures I referred to earlier, which I believe are damaging insertions in this Bill and not in accordance with sound education principles. While the hon. the Minister has endeavoured to rectify the omissions and deficiencies in the present legislation he has at the same time entrenched his power to the extent that, should these proposals be passed, he will hold a whip-hand over education in this country. His executive is designated by himself and because they are not democratically elected and the hon. the Minister is not obliged to take their advice, he can wash his hands of them at any time he wishes. Because the hon. the Minister is the sole judge and judgment lies in his opinion, the executive members will have to come cap in hand to the hon. the Minister. This provision does not encourage an objective and individual contribution at the advisory level. I have already referred to the provisions to remove specialist advisers from the executive. Although the hon. the Minister could find himself completely up a gum tree without such advice, he has preferred to consolidate his powers by removing the necessity for advice he should take but does not wish to take. There are 13, if my arithmetic is correct, untenable provisions in this Bill which extend and reinforce the hon. the Minister’s authority to the extent that he controls the whole caboodle, lock, stock and barrel. That is the rub. Charles Dickens shows in his novel Hard Times how a too rigid and autocratic approach to education produces technocrats when one should in fact encourage individual expression and free and flexible thought. Our school system still bears traces of this Victorian attitude. These 13 provisions indicate a direction towards greater centralization and autocracy. As this party warned in 1967, we warn again that the hon. the Minister is stepping off on the wrong foot. In fact, he will always be out of step if he promotes measures which enhance rather than reject the Hard Times attitudes to education.

I would like to refer to other untenable, authoritarian provisions contained in this Bill to qualify my view. The universities have the right to train teachers, but the hon. the Minister in the proposed section 1A(2) will interfere in their autonomy “on such conditions as he deems fit”, to authorize courses at a training college. This is the hon. the Minister’s solution to the log-jam. Though one may sympathize with him that the teacher shortage is pinching, this provision sets up a confrontation with the universities by enabling the hon. the Minister to force their hand when they wish to apply their autonomy over accrediting courses. In terms of the proposed section 1A(4), although the Administrator and the university council effect teacher training, all their decisions are now subject to the hon. the Minister’s approval. This amendment does permit the hon. the Minister to give de jure recognition to what is a de facto situation. At least one province apparently has already gone beyond the provisions of the Act in a desperate attempt to solve the grave shortage of junior secondary teachers, particularly in mathematics and science. In future, however, should the country be saddled with the ridiculous restrictions contained in the proposed section 1A(4), colleges will not be able to effect emergency training of teachers without the hon. the Minister’s permission and the children and people of South Africa will suffer.

In clause 3 the hon. the Minister extends education to include pre-primary schools. The schools do not, however, automatically benefit from free books and stationery. The hon. the Minister has reserved for himself the right to determine which categories of pre-primary schools shall benefit without any guide-lines to his decisions being laid down.

Clause 4 is an interesting anomaly. In fact, the whole thing would be comical if it were not so serious. Here the hon. the Minister proposes to divorce himself from the advice of his executive whose function it is to advise him when legislation on education is introduced. It appears that like the Renaissance Popes the hon. the Minister’s judgment is thought to be infallible; his executive need no longer to consulted. Further, the executive’s functions are at the discretion of the hon. the Minister and are not stipulated. It means that their powers and rights are not statutory, but subject to the will of the hon. the Minister. When one takes a closer look at the National Education Council, one finds that members are part-time, have no security of appointment and can be dismissed at any time merely if in the opinion of the hon. the Minister they are unsatisfactory. Subsistence and transport allowances are governed by the rates applicable to the Public Service, yet the hon. the Minister gives himself the power to decide just what the rates within this structure shall be.

Finally, the hon. the Minister, having accrued to himself these dictatorial powers, has a twinge of conscience which says to him: What if I take a wrong decision? His response is not to spread the responsibility as he should do. No, in clause 5(d) the hon. the Minister frees the council from any scrutiny or prying eyes because in terms of this amendment they are no longer obliged to submit an annual report to their activities which will only be referred to in part in the report of the Department of National Education. No wonder we see the hon. the Minister as riding roughshod over the principles that keep education viable. This high horse that he has mounted presents a shocking erosion of individual rights. To accept these amendments is for South Africans to place themselves squarely under the jackboot of autocracy. To appease this power-lust is to discard our birthright as individuals. This Bill, this whited sepulchre, is only a ploughing of the sands and will have very little fruitful return.

Who are you quoting?

Myself. We cannot help but think that this Bill is patchwork legislation which does not go the whole hog. The hon. the Minister has been forced by circumstances to amend the Act in an effort to improve the supply of teachers. We consider these measures to be half-hearted. They will not provide an effective solution to the critical teacher shortage. The reconstituted National Education Council seems unlikely to fulfil the functions laid down for it. The hon. the Minister cannot expect the council to be responsible when he has its responsibility removed. Direct teacher representation is limited, and by limiting their expression the status of the profession suffers. The teaching profession remains tied to the Public Service Commission. This is one of the obstacles that will have to be cleared away if the profession is to develop salary scales and promotion opportunities that will provide teachers with status, which is one of the functions the hon. the Minister wishes to achieve. The Bill does not prepare the way for a freely elected and fully representative teachers’ professional council with entrenched powers of registration and discipline of the members of the profession. The Bill does not introduce a new era in South African education. The teachers’ high hopes were only rosy-eyed optimism; this Bill is undistinguished from its faltering cousins of 1962, 1964, 1967 and 1969. We fear that like them it is doomed to failure. Advances in education will only be achieved when politicians keep their fingers out of the education pie and leave debating of it to the educationists. One suspects that the real device of the Bill is to gild the pill and that the meat of the matter involves everybody knuckling down to the Minister’s will. There are too many checks, too little faith and too great a centralization of authority. Our sad commentary is that the teaching profession will never have full status or prestige while it has to be associated with so little trust and fullblown ministerial dictatorship.

As his predecessor observed—

What a golden opportunity the hon. the Minister had to introduce that Bill to promote a spirit of free and enlightened inquiry. This Bill does not remove the obstacles in the way or the deficiences in our educational system. Should the hon. the Minister heed these warnings and adopt the recommendations made by this side of the House in a spirit of sincere endeavour to advance education and the teaching profession, he will be able to say, as his predecessor said on 20 February 1967, but with the assurance of success—

Before I ask the hon. member for Virginia to speak, I must give hon. members due notice that as far as the next session is concerned, I shall apply Standing Order No. 102 more strictly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North must not take it amiss of me for not replying directly to the things he said here. In the course of what I want to say I shall nevertheless return to certain of the matters which he raised, particularly in view of the fact that it was very clear that the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Durban Central, tried to seize upon this opportunity to engage in a little politicking, and that in this process they forgot the real, fundamental principles of education. I am very sorry, Sir, that I have to say this today to these two hon. gentlemen, for I want to associate myself with the hon. member on this side of the House who has already spoken and who congratulated the hon. member for Durban Central on his now being the main spokesman on that side of the House on educational matters, but I am afraid that he does not practise what he preaches and he does not mean what he says. I shall indicate to you why I am making this charge against him.

Sir, I want to come back to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North by saying, in respect of free education at nursery schools and the question of why education is not being provided free of charge, that the answer is, after all, clear and obvious, it is not compulsory education. If the hon. member cannot understand that one cannot provide free education when it is not compulsory education, then he knows very little about education, with all due respect to the hon. member. Sir, in regard to the Education Council, which according to this member is temporary and to which he also objected, I want to say to the hon. member that I am convinced that if the Minister had proposed a permanent council, which would of course have had financial implications as well, that side of the House would immediately have come forward with certain objections to that.

I want to point out, Sir, that when the National Education Act was passed in 1967, as well as the Advanced Technical Education Act, it was made very clear in this House and elsewhere that this was not the last word in regard to education, particularly in regard to the implementation of the policy and in regard to legislation. Consequently it is in order to implement the policy and to ensure the smooth functioning of the legislation that these amendments have been brought before this House today for consideration. Sir, surely it is very clear that education is dynamic; it is not static at all, and if this is true, then surely it follows logically that there will have to be necessary adjustments to the education policy from time to time to ensure the smooth implementation of that policy. This is precisely what is being contemplated with the amendments in this Bill. What is involved in these amendments is most certainly not a fundamental change of principle or of policy as laid down in 1967. My problem with hon. members on that side who have already spoken is that they wish to turn this matter into a purely political issue, to play to the gallery for those who will read in the Press the things they had to say here.

I want to refer to what the hon. member for Durban Central said when he pointed out yesterday evening that the predecessor of the hon. the Minister, and this side of the House as well, had been oblivious to everything except the so-called ideology. Sir, in this lies to my mind the difference in viewpoint between this side and that side of the House. To us what is at issue is most certainly very clearly the value of education as such, and we are very determined that we shall give very thorough attention to the ideology as well, because it is fundamental to education, and with this as basis we shall proceed to carry out the practical implementation of our policy. Therefore it will give me personal satisfaction if I know that our policy is already based on the ideological principle.

After that the hon. member proceeded immediately to the matter of the inclusion of pre-primary education in the national education policy. But at no stage did the hon. member indicate to us what he has against pre-primary education also being included in the national education policy, except perhaps, as the hon. member on this side of the House reproached him a moment ago, that he is afraid that we shall introduce the principles of Christian national education. The hon. member referred to the Van Wyk De Vries Report. Now I want to quote to him from the same report to indicate that education cannot be divided into separate compartments. From the very outset, from preprimary education up to tertiary education, it forms one clear entity. I am quoting from page 489 of the report—

And in addition—

It is therefore clear, Sir, that we are entitled to, and that it is in fact a requirement for pre-primary education to be incorporated in the national education policy. Then the hon. member went further when he stated the standpoint of the United Party and uttered what I found to be astonishing words. He pointed out that the policy should be formulated within the local environment and within smaller groups. Unfortunately the hon. member did not state precisely what he meant by that, but I am quoting from the Hansard report of his speech—

Sir, can you imagine anything more unthinkable than such a standpoint, that in the smallest environment, in the town … [Interjections.] But that is precisely what the hon. member said, that the specific controlling boards should determine a policy within the local environment, and then there should be a so-called co-ordinating body over them. With all due respect, I want to say that this is nonsense. Surely one cannot accept that one has different formulations of policy within a country, and that one should then have a co-ordinating body over these. Surely that is nonsensical. [Interjections.] Surely it is very clear that the formulation of a policy in respect of an important aspect of our society, namely education and training, should take place on a centralized basis. Its implementation may in fact be done through the various provinces and locally. The control over the policy will most certainly be implemented locally as well, but subject to co-ordination and supervision on the part of the Central Government, so that it may be ensured that the policy is in fact being carried out as laid down by the Central Government.

Reference was also made to the constitution of the National Education Council. I really cannot understand hon. members on that side of the House. It is said that the membership of the council has been reduced, and that instead of having 29 members there may in future be 19 to 21 members. The charge is being levelled that the practising teacher will not have sufficient say in and representation on the council. However, the hon. members fail to tell the whole truth, and to be a little positive in their arguments. It is true that in the old council there were two members representing the teachers’ associations, two out of the 29, which gave us a representation of more or less 6,9%. In the new constitution of the Council we once again have two, but this means two out of an average membership of 20, which gives us a representation of 10%. Ten per cent of the members of the Education Council will be representatives of the teachers. The hon. members are arguing as if the hon. the Minister would allow himself to be misled by appointing persons who know nothing about education. I want to say to the two hon. members that it is scandalous that, while they are on the one hand trying to encourage and strengthen the teachers’ corps and also the teaching profession, they are, on the other hand, putting too little confidence in their own people, in the teachers, whom they would like to assure of a status. I refuse to believe that the hon. the Minister will, from the ranks of the teachers’ associations, appoint a person who knows nothing about educational matters. Surely it is unthinkable, and cannot be true.

I want to deal further with the constitution of the council. The six heads of education will serve on it, and then there are two principals or rectors who will represent the universities, and in addition we have four lecturers from the educational departments of the universities. The hon. member complained because teachers’ training colleges supposedly have no representation. There are four representatives who, although they do not come from the teachers’ training colleges, nevertheless come from the universities as lecturers in the education departments. If the hon. member knew anything about education, he would certainly have realized that the representation which is being granted to the education departments, is sufficient to serve as representation of the teachers’ training colleges as well. In addition we have the representation of the teachers’ associations, not only of the Afrikaans- and English-speaking teachers, but also of advanced technical education.

As far as the hon. member’s plea for a professional teachers’ council is concerned, I want to associate myself with this and point out that it most certainly is true that the teachers’ corps will be very pleased one day when there is such a professional teachers’ council, which will function in the same way as the medical council, for example, and which will guard over the status of the teacher and the teaching profession. However, I want to indicate very clearly that we will then have the following three councils, namely the National Education Council, the Federal council and the professional teachers’ council which may perhaps be established. It is, after all, very clear to me that each of these three councils has its objective and its course which it has to follow. In the first place we have a National Education Council which is a body which has to exercise over-all control over the entire spectrum of education and training in the country. This is indeed an important objective, and the field which has to be covered by this specific council is indeed an extensive field. For that reason the constitution of the council is such that it is not only the practising teacher who serves on it, but also the lecturer at the university, the Human Sciences Research Council and the Heads of Education. Then there is, on the other hand, the federal council which is a body which guards over the conditions of service of the teachers. In short, it is the bargaining body of the teachers’ corps. This is a council which will most certainly continue to exist. Then we could possibly have a third council which is still to be established which will guard over the status of the teacher as such. For the present, while we still do not have a professional teachers’ council, I am personally very grateful that we have a National Advisory Education Council which guards over the status of the teacher. As the hon. member for Durban Central put it, this council will exert itself on behalf of education and the teaching profession. This council will also promote the status of the teaching staff. I want to say this afternoon that if we only have a body, whether it is a statutory body or the National Education Council or the federal council, which would try to ensure the status of the teacher, the status of the teacher will not yet be ensured in practice. To my mind it is the task of the teacher himself to gain status for himself through his public actions. I am very grateful to be able to say that from what I know of teaching the teachers go out of their way to act in this manner so that they do in fact justify their status. What is important, is that if our entire country and its population do not have the necessary regard for the teaching profession and the work of the teacher as such, the teacher and the teaching profession will never acquire anything like such a status. It is therefore part of the task of the inhabitants of the country to assure the teacher of that status.

I conclude by saying that I personally, and I think this side of the House as well, are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for having come forward with such an amendment. Basically it is a matter of the smooth functioning of the policy and the improved training of the teacher which will eventually be to the benefit of the child as well. Any right thinking person who is interested in education cannot fail to these amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to enlarge in detail on the speech made by the hon. member for Virginia, except to say that I found it a very fine illustration of one of the problems which has been present throughout the debate on; this Bill, namely that there is a constant shifting from one level to another. One moment we are discussing the organizational or technical problems and implications of the Bill and the next moment we are discussing its ideological implications. I do not intend going into all the points since it is this very aspect which is going to form part of my argument.

†I should like to offer my apologies to the hon. the Minister for not being present when he delivered his Second Reading speech. I can assure him, however, that I have studied the records as well as the records from the Other Place. From the Hansard of the Other Place I gathered that he had listened to most of the arguments and I want to assure him that I am not going to repeat them all. I should like to concentrate on a few central themes which are related to this Bill. Ostensibly, this Bill appears to be innocuous within the framework of the Government’s educational policy. As has been pointed out, it accommodates pre-primary education within the definition of a school. Secondly, it tries to reconstitute the National Education Council and also tries to establish greater cooperation between universities and colleges.

I do not think any one of us can deny the importance of pre-primary education. None of us can deny the importance of having good co-ordinating bodies for education in a society, nor can one deny the importance of certain innovative techniques to try to cope with the demand for teacher training in our society. These are purely technical considerations and I am convinced that any Government would have to confront them some time or another. But the real concern lies in the fact that these purely technical considerations fall within the framework of a particular educational policy. It is in this sense that I want to offer a few objections to this Bill.

Obviously any Government will have a framework, but one has to judge this framework. One has to ask how it will contribute to education and if one agrees with it in principle. I think we have very serious disagreements in principle on this basis. The hon. member for Virginia mentioned the fact that all education presupposes an ideological basis. In a certain sense I agree that this is true, but all education does not presuppose only one ideological basis. One has the option in a society to have competing ideologies with regard to education because this is a kind of creative conflict to have in regard to educational development in a society.

Order! Hon. members must not stand in the aisles when speaking to other hon. members.

Alternatively one can have only one particular ideological orientation in education which you want to force on the whole educational structure. We in these benches feel particularly strongly about this, and we judge all educational framework policies in terms of two fundamental criteria. The one criterion is: What is the maximum degree of functional autonomy possible between State and education in a society? The second criterion is: What is the most effective degree of decentralized education possible in South Africa? Why are these criteria important for us? Functional autonomy is important, to put it very simply, because it recognizes the innovative nature of educational inquiry. I cannot put it more simply than that. In other words, to the extent that organizational institutions have autonomy they can decide how they can fulfil the needs of their students of their pupils and of their particular community. On the other hand, decentralization allows for the most effective response to the needs of a diversified society such as South Africa.

In the light of these considerations, when we look at this Bill, we are particularly concerned about clauses 2, 5 and 8, or before it went to the Other Place, clauses 2, 6 and 9. The problem of functional autonomy is bound up with these particular clauses. In clause 2 we see, for example, that any agreement between a university council and the Administrator is null and void unless it is accepted or approved by the Minister. This to us is an undue interference in the relationship between a university and the local governing body. Why do they not have the freedom to decide on the nature of the close co-operation between them? To a large extent it places an impossible burden on the Minister to decide in each instance whether you have the right form of close co-operation.

Clause 5 refers to the reconstitution of the Educational Council and the point has been made often, and I am not going to belabour it, that none of these members are elected. They are all appointed by the hon. the Minister and in this sense we argue that he cannot have the most objective and the most representative National Education Council possible.

Nonsense.

I do not know why the hon. member said “nonsense”, because the educational institutions do not have the right to elect the people themselves. In the third instance, clause 8 refers to the fact that again the Minister may designate which students will be allowed to enter into a particular university or educational training system. This again is a right we believe is fundamental. Clause 8 states that the Minister must designate in the Gazette. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would inform me to the contrary in this regard.

In the Other Place Senator Odendaal tried to give reassurances as regards clause 5. He argued that of course the Minister would consult, would ask the advice of these different bodies and not simply make decisions on his own. However, there is no statutory provision for this in this Bill or any other law. This is purely dependent on the goodwill of the Minister. We cannot rely on that when we study legislation. We have to look at what the powers are which are contained in a particular Bill. As far as we are concerned, the legal implications of this Bill are a pure and simple illustration of Government paternalism towards education. There is no other conclusion one can draw. Obviously, the Minister himself will reply as he has done before that he will consult and be reasonable, that he does not want a bad educational system but that he wants the best one for the country. Again, this lies within his own discretion. There is no statutory provision for or compulsion on him to do so. There is no doubt in my mind that our educational system is under Government-centralized control—not State control—with the concomitant loss of functional autonomy. To illustrate this point one can look at some of the recommendations and findings of the Van Wyk De Vries Commission. I should like to quote only three statements to illustrate this. Here we have a Commission which was appointed by the Government with terms of reference drawn up by the Government and which investigated the matter. It came to certain conclusions, and one statement says—

Now, this may very well be the objective of the Government, or an objective of a particular political party, but it is certainly not a statement of fact.

Order! Is what the hon. member is saying relevant to the Bill?

Yes, Sir. With respect, I say it is relevant in the sense that I am trying to point out how the functional autonomy of educational institutions is influenced by bodies which have control over them.

The hon. member may proceed.

This particular finding of the Commission implies that we have, as a guide-line for education, multi-national separate development. I submit to the hon. the Minister that this issue itself is one of the most debatable points in the universities within our society. At Stellenbosch where I was for quite a long time, this is a debatable question. It is not an accepted statement of fact. The second statement we find in this Commission’s report is that a university can be free, or an educational institution can be free within the context of the Government’s policy. It says—

Order! With which clause is the hon. member dealing now?

I am dealing with clause 5, Sir. In terms of clause 5 the Minister appoints people; they do not have the right to be elected. These people can then advise the Minister on policy matters. I am trying to point out the implications of this particular principle. If you have this kind of principle operative for educational institutions, it leads to certain consequences, the consequences being that we have a Government-oriented paternalistic form of education. The statement I have just read, again underlines the point I made right at the beginning of my speech, i.e. that there is confusion in this debate between ideological considerations and matters of organization. We as an Opposition should have the right to oppose ideological considerations because they are fundamental to the whole principle of the education policy in this country.

*Mr. Speaker, let me just finish off by saying that I am not trying to say that we should create confusion here between functional autonomy on the one hand and licentiousness on the other. I know that a great many nonsensical arguments have already been advanced for and against academic freedom in our society. However, what is involved here is the nature of the interdependence between educational institutions and the State, and I feel that this interdependence is something in regard to which a Government and an Opposition ought to be able to debate and differ. However, here we have a position where the Government controls education at all levels, on both the ideological and the organizational levels, and where the Opposition is caught up in a situation in which it cannot argue about matters of policy. I believe that the function of the State is to establish a creative relationship between education and State; in other words, to allow there to be a relationship of creative conflict among the various educational institutions in a society, because they serve different communities. These various communities differ in their attitude to life, in their views and in their approach to problems. I believe that if these institutions can make a contribution with the greatest measure of functional autonomy, there is a far better chance of our having progress in the educational sphere and of our having an expansion of knowledge. It has already been proved through research into the education systems in Germany and Russia between the years 1920 to 1950 that this is one of the problems. For that reason I say that this Bill bears the stamp of State paternalism and over-centralization of education, and we cannot support it. We differ fundamentally with the provisions contained in clauses 2, 5 and 8, the fundamental clauses, because those provisions run counter to the functional autonomy of educational institutions and the decentralization of education.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express a few views on the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Rondebosch. He quoted very loosely, and it is difficult to follow a specific guideline. Therefore I, too, shall rely on one or two extracts. In the first place, he dealt with the constitution of the Education Council. I cannot understand why the Opposition is objecting to the constitution of this council. The constitution of this council makes provision for two important components, i.e. the makers of policy on the one hand and the implementers of policy on the other, who are then brought together as a unit in that council. In this council they are given the opportunity, in the first place, of doing research and, in the second place, of advising the Minister. There is more effective representation on this council and its functioning is more streamlined, so that it may act more expeditiously and make results available to the Minister with less delay.

The second aspect is the appointment by the hon. the Minister of members to this council. It is a fact that these members are drawn from the ranks of highly professional people. It is also true that the Minister does not interfere in the autonomy of particular universities. Every university has its senate, which controls and manages its affairs. The Minister draws those persons who, in his opinion, are equipped to advise him in this important task of education.

As far as pre-primary education is concerned, which has been brought in under the concept of “school”, this side of the House is not merely concerned with the financial implication that it will be easier for the Government to support such schools because they are under its control. There have been numerous applications from organizations which control such institutions and have requested that the State take over these activities. They are running into difficulties in many ways. However, this is not our primary need. The State’s interest lies with the importance of this phase of life of children in our nation, i.e. children between the ages of three and six years. If we take just a brief look at the broad instrumentarium of the child at that stage, we find that there are four basic divisions. The first is the physical division, the physical state of the child, in which we are interested; for his body is the instrument with which he will have to live for the rest of his life. The second aspect is the biotic aspect, i.e. the life-urge of the child. This is the autonomous nervous system, his urge to live. It controls activities such as the pace of a child’s heart-beat, his blood pressure and those activities which are of major importance in the life of the child. The third aspect is the psychic or sensory aspect. We are particularly interested in this, for it is from this aspect that facets arise which will determine the child’s progress at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. This includes the analytical urge, the child’s urge to analyse. We all know that phase during which the child takes to pieces the toys his mother has just bought so that he may analyse those toys for himself. There is the historical urge, the urge to investigate. He wants to do what father or mother does and wants to look like father or mother. There is the urge to speak, the urge to communicate. There is also the social urge, the urge to associate with peers. We also find the economic urge, the right of possession. He fights with his smaller brother about what he claims for himself. We find the aesthetic urge, the urge to possess fine things. In the pre-nursery school child we find the juridical urge. He seeks what sounds just to him and if he thinks his parents are treating him unjustly, he packs his little bag and leaves home only to return at night when it gets dark. There is the ethical urge. The child also wants to love. He loves his mother and his father. There is the urge to believe, the urge to accept what he finds beautiful. All of us are familiar with the nursery school child and his fairy tales. These are all the components of the psychic aspect of that child in which we are interested. It is in respect of this aspect that we can determine possible aberrations. This broad spectrum serves as a guide to us in the interest we display in the life of this child, and not only in respect of the financial aspect of his education.

A matter which was very frequently raised by previous Opposition speakers is the status of the teacher. The status of the teacher is not a loose cloak which can be draped around the shoulders of the teacher by someone else. The status of the teacher emanates from himself. In his task and in his service he will present his status and put himself across. As the hon. member for Virginia has pointed out, there is also the status which we as members of the public accord the teacher in the performance of his task. That is why we show him respect, and this enhances his status. The report of the Education Council which is falling away could be included in the report of the Department of National Education. It would be easier to include it there and it would also be less expensive. It will still give us an overall picture of our task.

The hon. member for Rondebosch objected to the conflicting concept of the ideology and the practical implementation of our education policy. I fail to understand the fear being felt in this regard. Every White child in this country has one loyalty and one fatherland, and that is the Republic of South Africa; there can be no difference of opinion on that, and any child who is trained with this as a point of departure and with the national symbols of this country, can in no way be wrongly indoctrinated.

Mr. Speaker, if you are concerned about the question of whether my subsequent observations are relevant, I want to refer you to clause 1(d) of the Bill which, if it is passed, will mean that pre-primary schools will fall under the provisions of section 2 of the principal Act, and more specifically under the provisions of section 2(c). Mr. Speaker, for most people English is not an easy language to learn.

Particularly for members of the National Party.

It is definitely a difficult language to master. It is an illogical language which is subject to few of the disciplines inherent in the Romance languages. It is full of exceptions to the grammatical rules, and it frequently makes use of tone of voice and nuances to convey meaning. Its advantage of course lies therein that it is an international, virile language.

Order! Could the hon. member refer me again to the clause which he is discussing?

I am referring here, Sir, to clause 1(d) of the Amendment Bill. The words which are being inserted here are “including pre-primary education”. Section 2(c) of the principal Act reads as follows—

Sir, that is what I am talking about.

Mr. Speaker, Afrikaans, which is a more modern language, is far more logical and I believe less of a problem to the student. Although Afrikaans is not an international language, its vitality and vigour is even today one of the phenomena of Africa. One wonders therefore why Afrikaans-speaking persons are usually so much more bilingual than the English-speaking South Africans. Perhaps it is because English is primarily the language of the businessman, or perhaps it is because of the enormous volume of books, literature and films which are available in English and which originate from all over the world. Perhaps it is because the Afrikaner, with his Dutch, German, French and Belgian heritage is by nature a better linguist. It is common knowledge that the English-speaking person struggles to master his own language, let alone the languages of others. And yet, Mr. Speaker, bilingualism in our Republic opens many doors; in commerce and in the business world it makes friendships possible, and leads to better relations.

To the master of two languages in our country, English and Afrikaans, is of inestimable value for the person concerned, as well as to the country.

When are you coming to the point you want to make?

I shall come to that.

Order! The hon. member is making a very wide detour. Clause 1(d) deals only with the definition of “school”.

Sir, what I want to say has a great deal to do with the clause.

The hon. member cannot elaborate on bilingualism now.

Mr. Speaker, may I put my point? The situation is that if this clause 1(d) is passed, then a pre-primary school is included in the definition of “school”, and it then falls under the provisions of section 2(c), which sets out the broad policy under the National Education Act. Section 2(c) relates to mother tongue education, and I am going to say in my own words, if you will allow me to do so, that it is not in the interests of South Africa to start dividing children just a few years after they are born because it is going to kill bilingualism. Mr. Speaker, If you will allow me to say that, I should like to say it in my own way.

*But I should like to say this. I do not think that we can hope to find solutions to our problems in this country while we cannot find one another, and South Africans will not find one another until the majority of its population has been able to achieve bilingualism. For that reason it is the duty of this House of Assembly not only to encourage proficiency in Afrikaans and in English among all the citizens, but also to promote this actively. Sir, this can never be achieved through pressure or force. Not even that clause, as we find it in the Transvaal ordinances, can succeed in doing so. On the contrary. Such prerequisites merely cause English-speaking persons, who are needed in the public service or in the provincial service, to keep out of it.

Why?

I have explained why. That is one of the reasons why we cannot support this Bill, and in particular clause 1(d) of the Bill which, if it were to be passed, would ensure that nursery schools which were managed or subsidized by the State would automatically be affected by this section 2 of the principal Act. I have already quoted this section, and I shall therefore not do so again. Hon. members know what I am talking about. Sir, this policy is already applicable to primary and secondary schools, and our children are already, for all practical purposes, being separated from one another from the age of six upwards. By making the nursery schools subject to this provision, the final separation of our children over a period is being ensured. In the Transvaal this idea is already applicable. Although the Transvaal Education Department insists that their nursery schools are bilingual, the situation in actual fact is that of the 25 nursery schools or nursery classes established by the department since 1969, only three are English medium. Apart from the disparity in the service which is being rendered to the two communities, total apartheid is virtually prevailing between our children now, and I say that this is a national tragedy. I appreciate that historic, financial and political reasons exist for this as far as the National Party is concerned.

Pedagogic reasons.

Political reasons. There are political reasons for the policy of the National Party in this regard. The question which I am putting, especially in regard to this Bill, is whether these reasons, these political, financial reasons have not with the passage of time already become inoperative. Let us review the facts.

Why are there so many private schools in the country?

There are many private schools in the country because there are people who wish their children to go into private schools, and I say that we should provide schools the people of South Africa demand—bilingual schools, private schools, if necessary English and Afrikaans separate, co-educational and perhaps single-sex schools. The job of the department is to provide schooling in terms of the requirements of South Africa.

*But what are the facts? In the first place we find that today there is an adequate network of single medium schools to meet the needs of the parents who desire this exclusive kind of schooling for their children. This is a situation which did not exist 25 years, or shall I say, 15 years ago. There are enough of them. That is the first fact.

In the Transvaal there are many such schools, but you do not send 10% of the children to them.

No, that is not true. The second fact is that the Afrikaans language has reached such heights and achieved such success that there is no further reason to fear the loss of its identity. That is how I feel about the matter. The third fact is that the English-speaking community, which comprises approximately 35% of the White population, is hardly able to overwhelm the Afrikaans language or cause its influence to diminish. In any event, that was never the objective. We believe in bilingualism, and we believe in parental choice. [Interjections.]

Order!

We believe in parental choice of the language medium at school. We say this is in the interests of South Africa. Consequently we are advocating that nursery schools and our younger children should not be affected by the provisions of section 2(c) of the principal Act, which lays down a policy to which we are totally opposed.

†What other matters come into play? [Interjections.] I know that hon. members are terribly bored and they all want to go home, but they have before them a very important law and I think they should give the matter their attention. They should not try to interrupt a member who is speaking. [Interjections.] People who take on the job of becoming members of Parliament have to serve the country and they do not have to worry about going home at certain times.

Speak to the Bill.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will. What other matters come into play if we accept clause 1(d)? First of all it is stated in section 2(a) of the principal Act—

We are therefore now introducing this concept broadly to pre-primary schools. We have no objection to this, but how it is going to be applied is relevant. I maintain that by including pre-primary schools no advantage will be gained by pre-primary schools in terms of section 2(a). The second point deals with section 2(b) which provides that education shall have a broad national character. Until the hon. member for Virginia spoke quite frankly I had no objection to that either. However, having heard the hon. member, I have doubts, because if you are going to try to introduce an education of a national character into primary and pre-primary schools, the question I want to ask is this: When are you going to introduce it into the creches and what do you think you are going to achieve?

You do not know what you are talking about.

We know that there is no form of education given to children in pre-primary schools. There should not be youth-preparedness indoctrination programmes given to children at pre-primary school level. If these indoctrination programmes have to be in the system, they should be restricted to the high schools where at least the pupils can understand them. If one listens to the hon. member for Virginia, it would seem that he wants to introduce youth preparedness even in pre-primary schools. [Interjections.] We shall then have multi-national creches very soon. I can see it coming.

Put the question whether your time has not expired.

Order!

I could not hear the remark by the hon. member. If we come back to section 2(c) we see that it deals with the mother tongue. In this connection we say that this is a distinct disadvantage which is now being imposed on pre-primary schools. Section 2(d) relates to compulsory education and the laying down on a national level of school ages. [Interjections.] The yapping of the dogs over there is terribly distracting.

Order! The hon. member must refer to hon. members.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that. The yapping of the members of an hon. nature over there is most distracting. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to complete his speech.

Yes, Mr. Speaker they obviously are pre-primary level. I do wish they would just allow me to finish my speech in as short a time as possible and then they can all go home, which is what they want to do.

Now that pre-primary schools are included in terms of section 2(l)(d) which relates to compulsory education it does not apply at all. Section 2(l)(e) of the principal Act relates to free education and books which of course would be a distinct advantage, but in this Bill it is withdrawn a clause or two later. Section 2(l)(f) of the Act relates to the type of education which will again be of no relevance and no advantage will apply in terms of this Bill. Section 2(l)(g) deals with co-ordination on a national basis of syllabuses, courses, examinations, etc. This again is irrelevant. There is no advantage in bringing the preprimary school under the definition of “school” as in this Bill. Section 2(1)(h) and 2(l)(i) relates to teachers’ associations and parent-teachers associations. These already apply at pre-primary school level. Again we see that this Bill is not necessary and contains no advantage at all. In fact, the only advantage of including pre-primary schools in the definition of a school in terms of the National Education Policy Act is that we are now probably going to have uniform salaries and conditions of service. We welcome this aspect, but what is in fact transpiring? We find that we have two sole advantages from the amendment effected by clause 1(d). The one relates to free schooling and books, which we are told does not apply, and the other one relates to teachers’ salaries which could well be provided for in another manner. On that basis we cannot support it.

I should also like to mention that clause 2 includes, inter alia, the insertion of new subsection (4) in section 1A of the Act. It provides that any arrangement made between an administrator and the university council shall be of no force and effect unless it is approved by the Minister. The words used in this subsection are strong words. Who are we dealing with? We are dealing with an administrator of a province who is probably one of the most senior people in the country’s administration and we are dealing with a university council which is a statutory body and which comprises the most highly educated people in South Africa—top authorities in their field. Yet, they cannot make a decision. Why not? I shall tell hon. members why not. They are not allowed to make any decisions because it is the policy of the Nationalist Party to centralize everything. What happens in terms of the Nationalist Party policy? The provinces limit the local authorities. Parliament limits the provinces and the Cabinet is trying to limit Parliament with legislation of this nature. Why not allow administrators and university councils to make their own arrangements? What do we really want? Do we want a complete standardization of all education? Do we want to turn out schoolboy-sausages or teacher-sausages in this case, all following one complete central theme? What does this sort of power mean in the Transvaal? In the Transvaal you often find that headmasters are bound in regulations by the decisions of the administrator. Do hon. members know what this in fact means? It means that a headmaster in the Transvaal in order to get a decision very often has to go to a clerk in the head office of the Transvaal Provincial Administration in Pretoria to get a decision. He deals with clerks. Subsection (4) says that no arrangement shall be of any force and effect unless it is approved by the Minister. Is it going to be the case here that the Minister is going to bring his mind to bear on everything or is it going to be the case that this sort of work is relegated to some clerk in his office? It is a case of top professional people in South Africa having to deal with people who are not professionally qualified. Is it a downgrading of the professional status of people? I am not going to talk about the creation of the council because this has been very fully covered. I want to mention just one further point. We cannot have confidence in this council, because I do not think it is really geared to look after the interests of teachers at all. The one point which I think is very important—I do not know why the hon. the Minister does not see this point—is that in any sphere of life, when you are seeking advice, it is unwise to have a totally appointed body in terms of which there is no devil’s advocate, no one except those who depend upon the Minister’s patronage for appointment. Surely, and I ask this in a reasonable manner, in the interests of education you need somebody who is not reliant upon the Minister, someone who will advise objectively without fear or favour. I am thinking of one or more people, not necessarily a majority, who will take it as their task actively to promote teachers’ interests. I am not suggesting that the hon. the Minister allows a hostile council, but one which is guaranteed not to be a docile one and one which will advise without worrying about his personal position. Finally, and this is my last word, I want to make a plea in regard to this educational body that more English-sneaking people should be represented on that body. The old council was a body of 28 people of whom only eight were English speaking. In the executive committee of the National Education Council we had six members of whom only one had an English-speaking name. The chairman and the vice-chairman of the National Education Council are both members of an organization known as the Broederbond, which as you know, is a body which is an anathema to any right-thinking South African. I make the plea that if you want English educationalists to come forward as members of this body and if you want English-speaking people to go into education—and there are thousands of English-speaking people who want to go into education—you must give a little too. You have to see to it that English-speaking people can get to the top as well and not just the people you appoint for their political viewpoint. To sum up, we are against this Bill, we want a consultative principle in regard to the appointment to this body, we would like a better balance of the body itself to protect the teachers’ interests, we want elected members and we would like more English speakers. Therefore we cannot support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is a deplorable situation that the hon. members of the Opposition, when we are dealing with a purely educational matter, regard the entire Bill through politically tinted spectacles. We have here, on the Opposition side as well as on my own side, hon. members who have been trained as teachers, and I honestly expected the approach to be a more positive one.

The main speaker on the Opposition side, the hon. member for Durban Central, began by approaching an amendment Bill from the point of view of the federal structure which his party advocates. The suggestion he put forward was that one should allow every local community to determine its own policy. However, he admitted in the same breath that there should also be co-ordination. In the first place I want to remind him of something of which he was also reminded by my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Defence, viz. what the standpoint of his side of the House was when my side of the House gave the Coloureds their education. They objected. They were opposed to giving it to a population group; and I am not even referring to a section now. The approach of the hon. Opposition to this Bill, is a political one. In reality the hon. Opposition is opposed to the principal Act, or to certain provisions of the principal Act. They are now seizing upon this amendment Bill, which is really of little substance, as a foil with which to attack the principal Act. The hon. member for Rondebosch summarized it quite correctly at the beginning of his speech. He said that it had struck him that two aspects had emerged in this debate: On the one hand the technical-administrative provisions, and on the other the fundamental standpoints. He was quite correct. He put his finger on the standpoint which the United Party emphasized here. This is really what this measure is all about, viz. the technical-administrative provisions. The fundamental aspect of this legislation are embodied in the principal Act, and have nothing to do with this measure. Unfortunately the merit of the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch ceased at that point, for what he went on to say indicated that he had fallen into precisely the same trap as hon. members of the official Opposition had fallen into, viz. to attack the principal Act. In reality the Opposition should have advocated another Bill here, but they probably knew that the hon. Speaker would have called them to order if they had done that. I am also sorry that what we really had here, apart from the few references to the Van Wyk De Vries report, was a rehash of the Senate discussions. In reality no new points of view emerged. The hon. member for Durban Central cried out very dramatically: “We are opposed to rule and dictation from Pretoria.” There were other hon. members who adopted the same standpoint. I want to explain to you what the situation in South Africa is, even though you should really know this. What we are seeking to achieve in South Africa is a national, coordinated educational policy which will be implemented on a decentralized basis by the various education departments. Now I am asking you, and anyone with a knowledge of the history of South Africa, and the history of the development of education in South Africa: What more can we have; what can we have that is better than that? The hon. member spoke of central control from Pretoria. Surely he knows that the Minister of National Education has the right to determine policy only after he has consulted a series of bodies, not the ordinary citizen, but experts, educationists. Only after he has consulted them can he lay down policy in regard to ten aspects which are set out in the Act. In regard to teacher training he can indicate guide-lines in regard to six points. The hon. member, and his colleagues echoed his sentiments, has now made me out to be a terrible dictator, who will get up to all kinds of terrible things in terms of this Act. At one stage the hon. member asked what was wrong. He called out: There is something lacking. I agree with him that there is something lacking. What is lacking, is understanding on the part of hon. members of the Opposition. I take it amiss of the hon. member for Durban Central, who is the chairman of his education group, for not having instilled a greater understanding of education matters into his members who participate in education debates. I want to make it very clear, and I am also saying this in view of the amendments which, it is obvious to me, are going to be moved subsequently when we come to the Committee Stage, that in regard to this legislation I obtained the advice of the Executive Committee of the present National Education Council. They are all experienced and recognized educationists who do not allow themselves to be led by political considerations. Among the members of the Executive Committee there are Afrikaans-speaking persons and one English-speaking person. In addition I submitted this legislation, as it is here before this House, to all the provinces in draft form, and I received the consent of all the Administrators—i.e., the Administrators-in-Executive Committee. I also held personal discussions here in the Cape, at which the Administrators and some of their directors sat down to discuss this matter with me around a table. We then discussed all the provisions of this Bill. Now hon. members see all the spectres with which they tried to frighten themselves. I want to tell hon. members that in an attempt to alleviate problems I am introducing these amendments as far as the technical-administrative aspects are concerned. As far as the constitution of the National Education Council is concerned, it is a fact that the present council has reached the end of its recommendations in respect of the ten points laid down by the Act. In other words, its immediate task has in fact been disposed of. I have already discussed this aspect with the council here in the Cape, I think it was two years ago, and asked them how they saw the future. I made it clear to them that, when their task had been disposed of, there were two possibilities: One was the abolition of the council in its entirety and the other one was a reconstitution of the council and a reformulation of its functions. We decided jointly that this was what we were going to do. I do not want to discuss the matter in detail, but it is clear to me that when we come to the clauses in question, we shall argue these points.

The hon. member for Durban Central and various colleagues of his, including the hon. member for Rondebosch, made an important point of our intention to include pre-primary education in the definition of “school”. He said that the provinces could very easily be enabled to do this work without including these institutions in the definition of “school”. Now I want to ask him, for he did not say this in his speech: How does he think I could have done this without including those institutions in the definition of “school”? I should very much like the hon. member to tell me this.

It is merely a matter of the financial aspect. That is all they require. If they were to receive an increased subsidy from the State they would be able to manage.

Then there is something else I want to ask the hon. member. There is a clear separation of function. Up to std. 10 level, education has been entrusted to the provinces. They have the function of incurring expenditure in respect of education up to std. 10. My department has a function in respect of special, tertiary and university education. If we do not include this provision here, how can we give the province a function which will entitle it to receive money from the State? That is the question I should like to put to the hon. member.

May I put a question in return? The hon. the Minister is the leader in the Free State. How is it possible for the Free State without this legislation, to pay nursery school teachers precisely the same salary as that for which provision is made for other teachers by the provincial administration? They do not need this legislation, and they are already doing so.

That is precisely the point at issue. It is the task of the Minister of National Education to co-ordinate. The one province says: “This is education, and we can subsidize it.” The other, on the other hand, says: “This is not education in terms of the Act, and we are not subsidizing it.” That is the point which the hon. member overlooks. I am very grateful that he did not follow the example of some of his colleagues in the Other Place by advocating that I should elevate pre-primary education to the status of higher education, and subsidize it in this way. I repeat:

This was the consideration and the unanimous request of the Administrators-in-Executive Committee, and for this reason it has been included here. However, I return to the National Education Council and I should like to convey my sincere gratitude to the members of the present council, whose term of office expires at the end of this year. The council performed excellent work, sometimes under very difficult circumstances. Now that we are proceeding to a new phase, in which we will require advice with a view to long-term planning, there will obviously have to be a different approach. For that reason we are eliminating the full-time members of the Executive Committee, and we will enter the future with part-time members only. It struck me that the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North revealed an interesting difference. The hon. member for Durban Central was quite satisfied—in fact, he praised it as one of the good points of this legislation—that legislation or ordinances which are introduced in the House of Assembly or in the provincial council, respectively, should not be subject to the prior approval of the executive committee of the National Education Council.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North attacked this amendment and labelled it as being one of the deficiencies of this legislation. Where do we stand now with an Opposition which holds conflicting views in regard to such fundamental matters as these? There is one other point I want to mention. The hon. member for Durban Central quoted here from the Van Wyk de Vries report. He quoted only that portion which suited him. I want to ask him now whether he agrees with the recommendation of the Van Wyk de Vries report in regard to that point which he quoted, viz. that all teacher training should take place under the guidance of the university. That is a question which he can reply to when he speaks again during the Committee Stage. I should very much like to hear his reply, for important matters hinge on that point.

Various points were raised relating to specific clauses. I content myself, however, with the general observations I have made and prefer to react during the Committee Stage, when we discuss the separate clauses to what the hon. members have said so far in this connection.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71: Albertyn, J. T.; Bandenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Loyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLaohlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—39: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

*The attitude was adopted in the Second Reading—I think by the hon. member for Algoa, among others—that here for the first time we had an official recognition of preprimary education. This was supposedly such an important matter. But that is not what this is all about. Pre-primary education was recognized years ago. I want to point out to the hon. member that if he had been here in 1969 when section 1(a) was inserted in the principal Act, he would have known that various speeches were made and that at the time, it was said that pre-primary education was officially recognized. There was talk at the time of the training of pre-primary teachers. Thus the hon. member’s whole point, viz. that we are supposedly opposing the recognition of this, is wrong; he is wide of the mark.

Pre-primary education is recognized in the schools throughout the country and, as far as I am able to determine, the only motivation for this legislation is the fact that the Minister is now in a position to provide bigger financial allowances and to subsidize these schools. But, as I put it in my question to the hon. the Minister, this legislation is unnecessary, particularly as far as the provinces are concerned. The only reason why the provinces cannot do this, is, in fact, an insufficiency of funds. How the hon. the Minister is going to ensure that they will in fact receive sufficient funds, is a different matter entirely. He could have done that without bringing this legislation before the House. Once again I just want to state it very clearly.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that when I referred to local communities in my Second Reading speech, I referred, of course, to the Legislative Assemblies in the federal set-up and not to every local community or different communities. With the Coloureds the position is very easy. We already had a decentralization system under the various provinces. Thus the principle of decentralization already existed and when it was taken away from them at that time, it was placed under a department which regulated the matter from a single angle. In other words, this is our principle.

We had no choice but to say that in Natal, where at that stage the Coloureds were even on the common voters’ roll, the local communities had to retain the control in terms of decentralization, in terms of the fundamental principles of federation. We therefore had to oppose what was proposed at that stage. That, after all, is not in conflict with the principle. The whole matter is bound up with decentralization. As I read it out, the hon. the Minister is correct. He must consult the people, the various groups, but he need not take their advice. Surely he knows from experience that the province of Natal, for example, has certain standpoints in regard to education policy and I am sure that he has consulted them. But the policy has not been laid down in those terms. I am not aware of any benefit that might accrue to pre-primary education as a result of its being included in the definition of schools. This is really something we are unable to support.

We have already discussed this matter in the Second Reading debate. There I tried to indicate that I introduced this amendment of the definition on good educational authority and that it has been justified educationally in all respects. But I have said that it is dear to me that a difference in approach is involved here in respect of the basis of principle that is, in fact, contained in the principal Act. Now, I fear that this is a matter which I shall not be able to get out of hon. members’ heads, even though we were to talk until next week, and I take it that this, too, is a standpoint they do not want to give up, as is evident from the amendment moved here. In other words, there is, in point of fact, nothing I can add to the argument I have already advanced, namely that I do this on good authority and that it is regarded as essential to eliminate the doubt that exists, as is proved by the diversity to which it has given rise in the various provinces, in order that all provinces have a statutory power to request money from the Government and also spend it for this purpose.

Amendment negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister put a question to me in regard to the Van Wyk de Vries Commission. The hon. the Minister is probably also aware that the Gericke report suggested the institute idea. In the case of this commission we have the college idea which corresponds, basically, with the institute idea to a large extent. As far as we are concerned, this is something that could in fact take place, but there are certain difficulties in South Africa that result in that idea not being capable of implementation in all colleges in all provinces. However, this is the direction in which movement is taking place, and I believe that if we can eliminate the bottlenecks, that idea will perhaps be capable of implementation.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

I do not want to repeat the arguments I advanced in the Second Reading debate. For that reason I am not going to deal with this clause at length.

†Subsection (4) reads—

I think I made the point quite clear during my Second Reading speech why we oppose this. I am not going to repeat the arguments, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the necessity is for this kind of provision.

Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate on the Bill we heard that circumstances varied from place to place, but as against that, the Minister of National Education is charged, in terms of the Principal Act, with effecting co-ordination in respect of a variety of aspects. It goes without saying that if agreements are entered into between an Administrator and a university in regard to the training of teachers for pre-primary and primary schools, the Minister must have the power to check whether such an agreement does justice to the idea, so as to prevent extreme inconsistency and ultimately, greater confusion than before. This is the only aim of that provision and both the Administrators and the universities are in agreement with it. It is impossible to have a model agreement for all places and for that reason there must be a diversity which must, however, be subject to the Minister’s approval. That is the only consideration that applies here.

Mr. Chairman, in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rondebosch, I want to say that if you look at this matter, you are dealing with an Administrator and you are dealing with a council of the university. The Administrator is obviously acting on the advice of the Executive Council while the council of the university is an autonomous body. As far as we are concerned, one deals with two competent bodies which can decide and which can reach an agreement. We therefore believe that an arrangement between the Administrator and the council of a university should not be subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister. If we look at clause 3, we shall see that the provinces are left with only one or rather two aspects in connection with the training of teachers, i.e. for primary and pre-primary schools. To think that this should also be subject to the approval of the hon. the Minister is, as far as I can see, going too far. The Minister should not be placed in the position where the impression will be left that he is interfering in this matter.

*I also want to refer the hon. the Minister to what was said in the Van Wyk de Vries Report. Mention is made in this report of the polarization that is taking place in regard to the implementation of the provisions of article 1A(3) of the principal Act. If the hon. the Minister were also to be included now as a third party, then that would not solve the difficulties. Let me furnish an example. Say, for example, the Education Department of Natal is prepared to do something in co-operation with the University of Natal. For some reason or other the hon. the Minister does not want to give his approval. This would give rise, not only to polarization between the universities and the provinces, but to the practical implementation of this becoming very difficult for the hon. the Minister. As a result the difficulty will arise that education will suffer if there is unnecessary quibbling about certain things.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is making a mistake. I am not being included as a third party who may later be the cause of confrontation between three interested parties. In reality I am being included to serve as a builder of bridges between the two. The existing legislation requires that teachers for pre-primary and primary schools be trained in close co-operation with the other two bodies. If the hon. member remembers the quotation he made from the Van Wyk de Vries Commission’s report, he will see that in that very report it is indicated that the provision in the Act does not determine the nature of the close co-operation that must exist. For that reason the commission felt that this could only be implemented with difficulty, or not at all. This is now being made subject to the approval of the Minister, whose function it is to co-ordinate in order to get the two points together and to build the bridge. This by no means constitutes interference on his part. In fact, the object is to make it possible for them to conclude the agreement.

Question put: That the subsection stand part of the clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—70: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—35: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and R. J. Lorimer.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendments—

1. (1) After “universities” in lines 66 and 67, page 7, to insert “nominated by the Committee of University Principals”;
2. (2) in line 67, page 7, after “in”, to insert “and nominated by the teaching staffs of,”;
3. (3) in line 5, page 9, to omit “an officer” and to substitute “a nominee”;
4. (4) in line 9, page 9, to omit “member” and to substitute “nominee”;
5. (5) in line 11, page 9, to omit “member” and to substitute “nominee”;
6. (6) in line 12, page 9, to omit “member” and to substitute “nominee”.

Amendments 1 to 6 are all connected with the fact that these specific committees will have representation in the National Education Council and that they will be appointed and will not be able to elect their members. For example, in the proposed subsection (1)(h)(ii), reference is made to two principals or rectors of universities, and we want these people to be elected by a Committee of University Principals. The same goes for the lecturing staff of the various university faculties and the representative of the Human Sciences Research Council. We want these people to be elected by their own bodies to represent their interests. This is something which we think the hon. the Minister could readily agree to. We cannot see why he should not get far better service from these bodies in the National Education Council if they are elected members of their various bodies.

†Then I also wish to move—

1. (7) In line 49, page 9, to omit “(a),”.

In this particular instance (a) is included in the proposed subsection (3) (bA). The (a), I want omitted is the (a) that refers to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. As it stands now, it simply means that the National Education Council …

Order! Hon. members must please converse more quietly.

… will advise the Minister also in regard to education provided at a university or a university college established by or under any law. I feel this is not the right thing for the National Education Council to do. You have the committee of principals of universities and it is not the function of the National Education Council to advise the Minister in regard to education provided at a university or a university college.

I am not going to move amendment No. 8, which is to omit paragraph (b) on page 11. I have read the Hansard of the Other Place and I see that adequate explanations have been given for this. Therefore, I am not going to move this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move—

Mr. Chairman, presupposing that the chairman and vice-chairman have been duly appointed by the Minister, our concern here is that the three other members of the council will also be designated by the Minister. We feel very strongly that these three members should be elected by their own body. Surely this is the normal procedure and it is a fundamental right to that body to elect members who shall form the executive committee. I do not want to dwell on it any longer but I wish to move accordingly.

Mr. Chairman, I move my amendment, as follows—

“(b) fifteen other persons, of whom—

1. (i) two shall be principals or rectors of universities nominated by the Committee of University Principals, one being a member of an English-language university and one being a member of an Afrikaans-language university;
2. (ii) four shall be principals of teachers’ training colleges managed, maintained and controlled by a provincial administration, one each being nominated by the Administrator of each province;
3. (iii) four shall be lecturers in the faculties of four different universities not being the universities of the principals or rectors referred to in subparagraph (i) above, and shall be appointed by the Minister;
4. (iv) one shall be an officer of the Human Sciences Research Council, appointed by the Minister;
5. (v) one shall be a member of an association of English-speaking teachers and one shall be a member of an association of Afrikaans-speaking teachers, nominated by the Federal Council of Teachers’ Associations;
6. (vi) one shall be a member of the South African Association for Technical and Vocational Education, nominated by the Association;
7. (vii) one shall be a director of a college for advanced technical education, appointed by the Minister;
8. (viii) the chairman of the council and the vice-chairman of the council shall be elected, by the members of the council from their own number.”.

This amendment deals with the composition of the Education Council. As far as this is concerned, we propose that 15 extra people be appointed through whom we want to try to strike a balance between those who are ex officio members—at present there are six ex officio members, i.e. the directors of education—and the appointments by the Minister. In the amendment we make provision for the Minister to be able to appoint the persons who fall under his department, such as the director of a college and persons from the Human Sciences Research Council, for example, However when teachers’ training colleges controlled by the provinces are concerned, we believe in principle that the administrator must be the person to make appointments. When it comes to the universities, there is the Committee of University Principals and we feel that it is only right for the committee of university principals to be the body to appoint those people. When it comes to the Federal Board of Teachers, we believe once again that the board should be the body to appoint the persons concerned. We are trying to introduce the principle of elected members.

Mr. Chairman, in his Second Reading speech the hon. member for Virginia pointed out that education does not remain static, and that for that reason one has to make certain adjustments from time to time. I also explained that the task of the existing Education Council had in fact come to an end and that we now had to have a new composition of the Council. We now have before us a number of amendments dealing with the composition of the National Education Council. In the Second Reading debate, too, we dealt with this matter fairly extensively. In the first place I want to say that we should not lose sight of the fact that this National Education Council is an advisory body without any executive powers. It is an advisory body for the Minister. In the second place, we should not lose sight of the fact that it is a statutory council. I ask hon. members: What statutory council gives various bodies the power to elect representatives to that body? In other words, the Minister has to appoint those people under the Act. This is also his function under the existing principal Act and he must carry the responsibility if he appoints incompetent people to that council and it is a weak council. The place where he is called to account is here in Parliament. Now, amendments have been proposed to the effect that certain of these members are to be elected, while the Act provides that the Minister designates them I want to tell hon. members, also against the background of the fact that pleas have been made here for more English-speaking persons on this council, that I am a champion of the idea that this council should be representative of both language groups in South Africa. This was one of the deficiencies in the previous dispensation, as it is still embodied in the principal Act at the moment. This is because the Minister was so bound and had so little discretion to appoint people, in that he had to take account of the language groups, the distribution through the whole country, and bodies in which these persons serve, that in fact, he had little discretion. That is why I think we must retain this provision as I have worded it here. We must state it in general terms and after I have appointed the council, you may criticize me when we assemble here again next year.

The hon. member for Durban Central will agree—in fact he said this himself—that until a short time ago, there were still English-language universities where no teacher training was undertaken. It is also a fact that until a short time ago there were English-language universities which only had Afrikaans-speaking persons at the head of their educational faculties. This is a developing process. If I were now to be found to designate certain people from certain bodies only, I should eventually get so tied up that I should have no further freedom of choice among these people.

The Committee of University Principals, for example, was also mentioned. As I know that committee, I am convinced that if it were to designate its own representatives, it would provide me with one English-speaking and one Afrikaans-speaking representative. However, if all the designations were to be determined specifically, the problem I would be faced with would be that the C.U.P., for example, would nominate for me the principal of the University of Pretoria, an Afrikaans-speaking person. It could then be the case that I should not want another Afrikaans-speaking representative from the Transvaal, but then I am saddled with the nomination by the Committee of University Principals, which I do not want. For that reason I want to retain a free hand in regard to this composition so that I may have freedom to select and appoint a balanced council. My endeavour, in the first instance, is to have an authoritative council, and in the second instance, to have a balanced council; but not from representatives of the bodies, because this is not a body in which representatives of various bodies are included. It is a body appointed by the Minister to advise him.

The hon. member also spoke about the position of teachers. I want to tell him that there are quite a few more teachers in this new council than he himself mentioned. Apparently he is not taking account of the fact that the persons from the ranks of the colleges for advanced technical education and vocational education who will serve in this council, will also be teachers. In other words, there will be quite a few more than there are in the present council.

The hon. member for Rondebosch also mentioned the case of the Human Sciences Research Council. I want to tell him that we consulted with the president of the HRSC. We asked whether we should provide that the president of the HRSC should serve on it. He said: “No, leave it open, because the person who heads educational research will be the person who can furnish the best service in this council.” That is why we left it as it is.

The next argument concerned subsection (3) (bA) of section 4 which provides that the power of this council be extended so that it may, at the request of the Minister, go beyond its province, which in fact only includes education up to Std. 10, and advise the Minister in regard to spheres falling outside its prescribed province. All that is envisaged here, is the following: Say, for example, I am concerned about the problem of the high failure rate. This is a matter in which the fault may lie with the school if we are dealing with education up to Std. 10. The fault may also lie with the university, in the sense that their grouping of subjects may be wrong. It may lie with the lecturing at the universities. There are a number of possibilities. For that reason I think it is only right that in such cases, which will be very exceptional, I should be able to go beyond this prescribed province and address a request to the council to look at what the effect of their advice is, also outside the sphere of its present province. This provision has nothing to do with and constitutes no overlapping of the functions of the University Advisory Committee. The University Advisory Committee, to which the hon. member for Durban Central referred, has entirely different functions. This committee scrutinizes the development programme of each university every year. They determine which items are urgently necessary. They recommend, for example, what can be granted this year and what has to wait until next year. They select courses, new faculties and so on. They do not really deal with the kind of problem I had in mind in introducing this Bill.

I have now put the matter in broad perspective. If hon. members understand what we mean by this, they will see that it is unnecessary to adopt the amendments they have moved.

On amendment moved by Mr. P. A. Pyper,

Question put: That all the words from “at” in line 60, page 7, up to and including “universities” in lines 66 and 67 stand part of the Clause.

Question agreed to and amendment dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

First to sixth amendments moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. B. W. B. Page negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Seventh amendment moved by Dr. F. van Z. Slabbert negatived (Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause put and the committee divided:

Ayes—71: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis. A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—37: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 8:

I have two amendments in mind, but I do not want to propose them because the hon. the Minister indicated that he will provide me with information in regard to the significance of this clause. Depending on the explanation given by the hon. the Minister, I shall decide whether it is worth the trouble to move these amendments. This concerns the fact that the Minister has certain powers in regard to the admission of students to a college, after the university has come to an agreement with an Administrator, and that the Minister will designate who may be transferred as a staff member of one university to another university. I am only concerned about this question of designation and exactly what it means in a Gazette, but I trust that the Minister will be able to set my mind at rest.

In my opinion the hon. member is drawing an incorrect inference from this clause. All this clause involves is that in the case of a person who is enrolled at a university as a student—and I have no say over that because it is determined by the university—the province is authorized to admit such a student to certain subjects or certain courses at the provincial administration’s teachers’ college. Actually this is a financial measure to provide that such a student may attend such a college for the specific purpose.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 49—

This Bill has been on the Order Paper for some considerable time. We now find ourselves having this complicated measure before us in the dying moments of the session. What is more, the De Vries Commission report has been in the hands of the hon. the Minister for a considerable time and yet this Bill was presented to the Other Place to be debated before the De Vries Commission report was tabled. The Minister will be aware that it has a great deal to do with the policy of education. Now we have this document which was tabled yesterday and we are having this debate in such a manner that we have to take stages one after another. We have been through a Committee Stage, and members sitting in this Committee did not know what the amendments were because there was no time to have them circulated or to study them. When I say there was need to study the De Vries Commission report, I need only refer to one fact, to one statement only, and that is where the commission finds—and I do not agree with many of the commission’s findings—that section 1A(3) of the National Education Policy Act cannot be carried into effect. Yet we are sitting here today legislating to amend this particular section. The Bill as we have it now before us will have to be applied, but to us on this side of the House it is a most disappointing piece of legislation. It shows no effective rethinking in regard to the determination of our national education policy. The members of the National Education Council, except for the heads of education who are to be ex officio members, are all appointed by the hon. the Minister. This can only imply and mean that the policy advice which the Minister will receive will be directed to conform to what the De Vries Commission has said, viz. that education must conform to the policies of multi-national separate development. This is at a time when we should have before us legislation which expands and not restricts facilities and when we should be revising and reviewing our attitudes towards higher education. However, as I say, now we have a National Education Council which has to advise the Minister on such important matters as co-ordination of research in the field of education and it is to be a purely nominated body. This comes at a time when the hon. member for Algoa correctly tried to draw the attention of the House to what he believed we needed, viz. something on the lines of the American Opportunities Programme. Here is the opportunity to provide for something of that sort, but we are going on with the same old method of dealing with education. The world wants to see something of a change in our attitude to education in this country because it is very vital to our policy. We in South Africa particularly are faced with the need for a qualified manpower infrastructure if we are to have economic development in our country.

When we are dealing with education in the context of the Bill before us, what are we doing? We must realize that we are attempting to provide for higher education for the White people and we expect of them to qualify as the doctors, engineers, technicians, entrepreneurs and businessmen so that they can look after the future of South Africa. However, in White South Africa where we are attempting to put this load so unrealistically on our White people through education, we are expecting 17,5% of the population to provide this infrastructure of educated manpower for South Africa. In White South Africa there are 3,75 million Whites, 2 million Coloureds, 600 000 Asiatics and 8 million Blacks.

I believe that this Bill, as I have said, is a most unsatisfactory and disappointing piece of legislation and it will make no contribution to the better use of the facilities for education for which money has been voted by this House. We have to give some meaning to it in this country when we talk about opportunities and doing away with discrimination to which our ambassador rightly referred in the United Nations. However, that cannot be done when we continue with the same policy in regard to education as is now in the Bill before us, when we still go on with the concept that all we must concern ourselves with is to see how White education is improved quite separate and apart from other contacts.

There is much more that I would say had I had the opportunity to do it, but I believe that the time has come for the hon. the Minister to tell us, as I hope he will do next session, quite categorically that we cannot continue in South Africa to provide education in the framework of the legislation which we have now. The time has come when the universities must be given back their complete autonomy in order to select their own students and staff and to get on with providing the education which can provide men who will be able to meet the urgent needs of the development of this country. This Bill, as it is, merely perpetuates the system which we have and to that extent we cannot support its Third Reading.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—71: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Louw, E.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer. P. H.; Morrison. G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.

Tellers: J. M. Henning. A. van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Noes—39: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Boraine, A. L.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lorimer, R. J.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: E. L. Fisher and W. M. Sutton.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Cultural Institutions Act, 1969, has now been in force for just over five years. During this period practice has shown that certain provisions of the Act impede the administration of cultural institutions, and the Bill now before the House chiefly aims at making the administration more streamlined. This objective is pursued in two ways: Firstly, by authorizing the making of certain regulations and secondly by making provision for the delegation of specific acts to the Secretary for National Education and to the councils of the institutions. In fact, section 6 of the Act provides that a declared institution shall be under the control, management and direction of its council. In the spirit of this provision I feel it is justified to entrust more powers to the councils. At present a declared institution must, in terms of section 4(2) of the Act, in each separate case obtain the Minister’s prior approval to invest moneys. It is understandable that obtaining such approval links up with specific administrative processes, and the consequent loss of time. The amendment envisaged in clause 3 will bridge this shortcoming in the Act in that the investment of money can take place according to regulations which may be promulgated by the Minister. Clause 3 also does away with the cumbersome procedure that has to be adopted in terms of section 4(3) to exchange, sell or otherwise alienate movable property, and in future, subject to certain provisos, institutions themselves will be able to decide on such alienation.

†The Act does not authorize the implementation of personnel administration. It only determines that regulations on personnel administration may be framed. The fact, however, that the nature and the functions of the various institutions are very dissimilar, makes it very difficult to frame regulations which will cover every possible variety of personnel administration such as appointments, the determination of establishments, dismissals, and conditions of service such as hours of service, etc. After the analogy of the Educational Services Act, 1967, and the Advanced Technical Education Act of 1967, certain provisions are now inserted to authorize personnel administration without necessarily having to frame regulations thereon.

Mr. Speaker, the council of the South African National War Museum in Johannesburg felt that a more appropriate and descriptive name for that institution would be the “South African National Museum for Military History”, and asked me to bring about the necessary change. Effect is given to the council’s request in clause 4 of the Bill. It is sometimes desirable to appoint or to reappoint a council member for a shorter term of office than the three years which section 6 of the Act demands. The amendment in clause 6 empowers the Minister to appoint a council member for any period up to three years. The Bill also contains some minor textual and other amendments which do not affect the principles already embodied in the Act. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill will enable the declared cultural institutions to carry out their very important and praiseworthy functions even more effectively.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, we are living in historic times. Here we have a Minister who is truly a “man for all seasons”. He is the Minister of Indian Affairs and of Tourism, but yesterday we saw him acting as Minister of Finance and this evening we see him here in the capacity of Minister of National Education. The Department of National Education, of course, also includes the Department of Cultural Affairs. It is also an historic day in another respect. It is Martin Luther Day, 31 October, the day of the Reformation. Let us then also take the lead and reach a consensus with the hon. the Minister at this stage. I am consequently going to tell him that the Opposition supports this Cultural Institutions Amendment Bill.

That is more than his supporters do.

In South Africa we have a large number of cultural institutions which are statutory institutions. The main purpose of the amendment being introduced here—and I know the hon. the Minister is very well informed about that—is to facilitate the administration of those institutions to a certain extent. Since we are dealing here with statutory institutions which have, over the years, gained the confidence of the public and the State, and because certain powers are now being granted to them, we have no objection to the legislation. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the allocation of a subsidy will grant security to these institutions, particularly with regard to future planning. The present system of grants-in-aid is, of course, implemented on an ad hoc basis, and as such it does not lend itself to advance planning. This creates a measure of uncertainty. The fact that investments are going to be made in accordance with regulations, is of course going to eliminate unnecessary red tape. This is something which is therefore welcomed. We also welcome the fact that the powers in connection with the establishment can be transferred to the council and even to an officer. Under the old dispensation the hands of the persons concerned were too firmly tied. This caused theoretical and practical problems.

I now want to refer to clause 5. If the hon. the Minister looks at clause 5 he will see that the Minister shall determine the establishment of any declared institution. In a spirit of unanimity I want to suggest that what we would like to see there is the establishment of a declared institution being determined after consultation with the relevant council. I think this is something which will create confidence. I would even be satisfied if the Minister simply said that this is already being implemented in general practice.

Clause 4, of course, is of great importance. It is also of historic importance. In terms of this clause the name of one of our country’s most valuable cultural institutions, the S.A. National War Museum in Johannesburg, is going to be changed. The present name is going to become a part of South Africa’s past and the name “National Museum for Military History” is going to become a part of the present South African scene. The fact that about 170 000 people visit this museum annually is proof of its vitality as an institution. A museum is one of the secondary sources that historians use to reconstruct the past, and the Johannesburg National Museum for Military History is more than just a museum for war history. Therefore the change in its name is not only necessary for linguistic reasons, but also because of the nature and character of the museum. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at once that I appreciate the support of the hon. member for Durban Central. I am glad that he, like myself this morning … [Interjections.]

Do at least speak so that we can hear a word or two.

Sir, I cannot open the hon. member’s ears—let alone even his mind I want to say at once that the hon. member for Durban Central was most probably listening to the Afrikaans service this morning and heard that 31 October is the memorial day for Martin Luther. [Interjection.] He knows it nevertheless. I want to say at once that I am grateful for his support of this Bill. I hasten to give him the assurance that although the Minister determines the establishment of the institution in terms of clause 5, it is general practice for him to do so in consultation with the councils administering the specific institution.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the proposed section 5B, which reads:

Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that this provision will enable him to assign the capacity which he now fulfils back to the responsible Minister?

Mr. Chairman, a question has been asked from this side of the House, and we would like to have it answered.

Mr. Chairman, the capacity in which I am introducing the legislation is not determined by the legislation concerned. The hon. member’s question is therefore irrelevant.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before the House makes provision for a number of independent measures and for the amendment and repeal of various Acts. Several of the clauses are self-explanatory and require no argument. However, I shall briefly indicate what the various provisions entail.

In clause 1 the prohibition in section 29(1) of the Banu Administration Act, 1927 (Act 38 of 1927), concerning the stirring up of feelings of hostility between Bantu and Whites, is being extended to all population groups. The deliberate stirring up of feelings of hostility between any of the population groups could have serious consequences for society as a whole, and an extension of the existing provision therefore appears to be desirable.

In clauses 2 and 38 provision is being made, as has already been done in several countries, for the protection of South African and related undertakings against the furnishing of information which may be prejudicial to them. Where such prohibition exists, undertakings cannot normally be compelled to furnish information abroad.

Clause 3 serves merely to eliminate any doubts on the legal position concerning the place where death sentences, imposed by superior courts of the Bantu homelands, must be carried out.

Clauses 4 and 39 sanction extra-statutory arrangements with respect to the control of certain school funds.

Since the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council cannot pass legislation which is in conflict with Acts of Parliament, the provisions contained in clause 5 are necessary to give effect to the Coloured Farmers’ Assistance Law, 1973, of that Council.

Clause 6 provides for certain facilities to be made available at Onderstepoort, at State expense, and the clause is self-explanatory.

Clauses 7, 15 and 16 empower bodies mentioned in those clauses to sell liquor without a licence too, while clause 8 makes provision for smaller quantities of liquor to be supplied to visitors, particularly those calling on farms on the wine route.

Clauses 9 and 11 to 14, 17 and 20 make provision, Sir, for a new kind of liquor licence, i.e. a wine house licence. The licence is being created for places such as “Paddagang” in Tulbagh, and can be granted, in respect of buildings in which meals are regularly sold to the public, for the sale of table wine manufactured by the holder of a wine farmers’ authorization.

In 1963 section 55bis was inserted in the Liquor Act, 1928. It makes provision for the conversion of certain wholesale liquor licences into bottle liquor licences. Its provisions, however, have served their purpose and clause 10 proposes that they be replaced by new provisions affecting such conversions.

Two further provisions relating to liquor are contained in clauses 18 and 19, whereby provision is being made for the employment of women to serve liquor in certain ladies’ bars and for granting so-called ladies’ bar privileges in respect of certain licences. So much for liquor, Sir.

†In terms of section 32(1)bis of the Attorneys, Notaries and Conveyancers Admission Act, 1934. the touting for work in connection with the administration of estates is prohibited. This provision is evaded as appointments as executors and administrators are procured by persons canvassing for work in connection with the drawing of wills. The amendment in clause 21 is aimed at this practice.

The hon. the Minister of Finance in 1970 approved the indemnities provided for in clause 22. In order to abide by the principle that Parliament cannot be bound administratively as to future liabilities, statutory authority for the said indemnities is proposed hereby.

Clauses 23 to 33, Sir, contain amendments to the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944. Clause 26, and the consequential amendment in clause 23, relate to extended powers regarding the service of process. Clauses 24(l)(a), 25 and 27 to 29 relate to the increase of the civil jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts. That jurisdiction is adjusted in conformity with the decrease in money values. Regional magistrates will be deemed to be appointed additional magistrates for every district in their regional divisions so that they will be able to try civil matters in those districts, with the ordinary civil jurisdiction of a magistrate’s court.

A regional magistrate can under the existing provisions be appointed an additional magistrate for any district, but the necessity to make separate appointments will now fall away. The amendment contained in clause 24(l)(b) will authorize the appointment of a magistrate to act in that capacity in more than one district at the same time, in order that better use can be made of the available manpower.

Clauses 30, 31 and 32 provide for the increase of the jurisdiction relating to fines of magistrates’ courts, which was last fixed during 1952. This increase is also in conformity with the decrease in the value of money. As provincial councils cannot grant an increased jurisdiction to courts, magistrates’ courts are empowered under clause 30 to impose the maximum sentences prescribed by the Road Traffic Ordinances. This is done with a view to road safety at the request of the National Road Safety Council. In consequence an adjustment is made with regard to culpable homicide to exclude possible anomalies. Clause 33 stands in connection with clause 36 which I will deal with later on.

*According to a recent court decision, the Defence Amendment Act, 1972, did not succeed in its object of exempting certain Defence Force funds from licence fees, taxes and other levies. The shortcomings are being eliminated by clause 34.

The provisions being repealed by clause 35 are obsolete in the light of present circumstances relating to ocean mail contracts.

The South Africa Law Commission recommended the provisions in clause 36 to facilitate, where necessary, the security of justice and uniformity. If the provision is accepted, the necessity for section 113 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act falls away. Hence clause 33.

The definition of a “Coloured company” in the Coloured Development Corporation Act, 1962, is being amended by clause 37 so that the skill and experience of White businessmen, in particular, can be employed for commercial and industrial development in Coloured areas. Businessmen are hesitant to make their knowledge available to an undertaking if they cannot obtain a reasonable interest in such an undertaking. In addition Coloureds do not always have the capital with which to obtain a controlling share in an undertaking, with the result that it is necessary to empower the Coloured Development Corporation itself to supplement the shortage of capital.

Clauses 40 to 42 make provision for the dissolution of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council by the State President. The Executive Committee of the council expressed itself in favour of such an amendment as far back as 1971. The purpose of that is to give the Coloured electorate, if this is necessary for some or other reason, the opportunity to indicate their choice anew. As is traditionally the case with the House of Assembly, it is not expected that the State President will dissolve the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council except when a general election is necessary.

Clauses 43 to 46 extend the period within which it is not necessary for the owner of affected property, in terms of the Community Development Act, 1966, to pay an appreciation contribution.

In terms of existing law members of the South African Indian Council are at liberty to elect a person both as chairman of the council and as a member of the executive committee. This is contrary to generally accepted political principles as applied in governing bodies and creates problems for the chairman of the council who has already had to defend actions of the executive committee from the Chair. The matter is being rectified by clause 47.

It is essential, Sir, that a comprehensive register of all fire-arms in the country be compiled. To encourage members of the public to come forward without fear with unlicensed arms and ammunition which are unlawfully in their possession, clause 48 makes provision for the proclamation of further periods of grace.

Sections 4(9) and 23(10) of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, make provision for certain appeals which may be lodged with an administrator of a province or of the territory of South-West Africa. At present the administrators have to deal with such appeals on their own, without the assistance of their executive committees.

We have all night; you do not have to rush so much.

Order! I want to warn the hon. member for Durban Point that I have laid down quotas for interjections and the balance of his quota is very small.

On a point of order, Sir, I thought the hon. member for Durban Point was sleeping.

Mr. Speaker, I think we should forgive the hon. member; he has perhaps had a very good meal this evening..

The administrations concerned requested the amendment in clause 49 in order to facilitate the task of the Administrators.

Clause 50 entrusts to the courts the task of deciding on the condonation of prescription in terms of the Compulsory Motor Vehicles Insurance Act, 1972, with the necessary guide-lines in terms of which action should be taken.

In view of the fact that new legislation has been introduced in connection with the Parliamentary Medical Scheme, it has been decided not to proceed with the amendments contained in clauses 51 and 52.

It has been decided that the time is ripe to repeal all statutory provisions containing penal sanctions in regard to labour contracts. This is being done by clause 53 and the Schedule.

Mr. Speaker, we object to this type of legislation and we have expressed our objection to this particular Bill on two occasions already. This Bill contains a multiplicity of principles and it is traditional in Parliament that a Bill should have one major principle on which the House must decide. I know it has been the practice in the past to introduce at the end of a session an omnibus Bill with more than one principle, but I submit that the legislation before us goes too far. In addition our objection to this is that two Bills were introduced into this House dealing with separate matters, with different principles. Those Bills were subsequently withdrawn and included in this General Law Amendment Bill in order to place them for consideration before this House. We deprecate that sort of action.

The hon. the Minister is handling this Bill which affects many other departments. We should have liked to have the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs here …

Where is he?

Our main objection is to clause 2 and the Minister ought to have been here in order to deal with that clause. But he is not here.

Where is your leader?

My leader did not introduce this Bill; he is not responsible for the Bill and the clauses which it contains. I am saying that the hon. the Minister who is responsible for administering the law should be present. [Interjections.] I am sorry that the hon. member interjected in that way because I was not going to remark on the empty benches on the other side, but now I shall. Where are the hon. the Ministers? This is a General Law Amendment Bill which affects several Ministers and they should be here. We have the hon. the Minister of Justice here because he introduced the Bill. The hon. the Minister of Defence is present but where is the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations? He has an interest in this Bill because it affects the Coloured Representative Council but where is he? I do not want to go into details about all the Ministers but I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not here because the clause which affects his department is one to which we object.

When a Bill contains so many different principles we have to decide what we are going to do, whether we are going to support or oppose it. We have to base our decisions on the effects of the Bill; how much good is there in it and how much bad is there in it. If the good outweighs the bad, then we have to support the Bill; if the bad outweighs the good, then we have to oppose it. In this Bill there are a lot of good clauses and there are some bad clauses, but we feel that the good outweighs the bad and therefore we shall support the Bill in its Second Reading. Our main reason for giving support to the Bill is because of clause 53.

This clause repeals the Masters and Servants Acts, Laws and Ordinances dated from 1956 …

No, 1856.

I beg your pardon. It dates from 1856 to 1964 and embraces some 24 bits of legislation.

Who introduced it in 1856?

It does not matter who introduced it in 1856; the fact is that over the years 24 pieces of legislation have been introduced into this Parliament and the parliaments of the colonies before Union. Nothing has been done to repeal those laws. Some of them act harshly and that is why they are now being repealed. I know that these different Masters and Servants Acts protected the rights of the employer and the employee. That is quite right.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Why did the United Party, when they were in power, not repeal those laws they are so glad are being repealed now?

Order! Order!

Mr. Speaker, that is very easy. The Nationalists have been in power in this Parliament for 26 years and we have asked for the repeal of these laws. They have now done it. I want to remind that hon. member that the United Party raised this matter in 1972, when we put a question on the Order Paper. I wish the hon. member would listen now. The question then was and I quote—

The reply of the Minister of Labour in 1972 was—

I want to know why there has been a change. In 1972 it was not considered necessary when the United Party asked for it, but now it is. Because we asked for it so long ago and because the Government is continually following us in the application of policy, we support its move to abolish those laws. I am not going to deal in detail with these laws because other speakers will deal later with the labour legislation.

I want to refer to clause 1. As it first appeared clause 1 was opposed by the United Party. When this Bill appeared in the Other Place we expressed our opposition there and the hon. the Minister then accepted an amendment as the result of which the clause reads as follows—

As the hon. the Minister rightly said when he introduced this measure the previous prohibitions were against feelings of hostility between Bantu and Whites. Now it has been extended to all the population groups. We are prepared to support it, because it is quite clear from the wording of the provision now that there must be intent to encourage or foment feelings of hostility between groups and intent would have to be proved. We shall support this now because of the amendment which has been introduced by the hon. the Minister in the Senate.

We cannot accept clause 2. That is why I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs is not here. This clause deals with the prohibition of furnishing information as to business carried on in or outside the Republic in compliance with order, direction or letters of request issued or emanating from outside the Republic. The hon. the Minister says that the intention is that these orders will only be ordered from a court or from a commission. In the Other Place, we asked that it should be made clear in the legislation by amending it so that it should apply only to direction or letters of request issued by or emanating from a court of law or a statutory authority. If these words were included it would be quite clear that this prohibition would only apply where interference by foreign authorities is concerned, and would not apply to industrialists and others who have business in this country and who are seeking information from their own sources. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister did not accept it. I do not intend to address the House further on this point, because other hon. members will take the matter further. We have no objection to clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. Clauses 7 to 21 deal with liquor legislation. I do not intend addressing the House on these clauses, because it has been the practice of the United Party to allow a free vote when liquor matters are dealt with in this House. Members can express their own views and they are allowed to vote freely.

The next clause I want to deal with is clause 32. Clause 32 is one of the clauses which amends the Magistrates’ Courts Act.

I do not intend to go into the detail of this clause because other members on this side will do so during the Committee Stage. This clause merely increases the fine which effects the remission for automatic review. We feel that with the falling value of the rand it is quite right that this amount should be increased. There is some fear that it will mean that fewer cases will be sent on review to the courts and this is so, but judging from replies to questions which have been put to the Minister in this House it is quite clear that the number of cases which are upset on review is absolutely negligible and that by far the greater majority are upheld by the judges. Clause 34 deals with a defence matter, viz. the question of the taxation of property belonging to messes or clubs or trading institutions attached to the Defence Force. We are opposed to this provision. I am not going to go into detail, because members of our defence group will go into detail on this matter. We hope that the hon. the Minister will meet us in our objections. The main being that the effect is retrospective. The matter has only arisen because of a judgment in a recent case in Natal.

There are other clauses dealing with magistrates’ courts and also with the Coloured Representative Council. We accept all the clauses dealing with the CRC and other members will give more detail in this regard in the Committee Stage. I want to say again that it is a pity that the Minister of Coloured Relations is not here. Then there are matters dealing with the MVI and here we have an objection, although relief is given to the public. We still have an objection to the wording of this particular clause. This will also be dealt with in the Committee Stage and we will propose an amendment then.

We are opposed to legislation of this nature right at the end of a session dealing with so many matters, but because these provisions deal in the main with the repeal of the Master and Servants legislation we will support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, we take cognizance of the fact that the chief spokesman on the Opposition side did his best to find in this Bill a principle which he could support. Because he sought that principle in the repeal of certain measures concerning the Master’s and Servant’s Legislation and in clause 1 and because his approach was an intelligent one, I want to congratulate him on this. This is a ray of light we get now and again from that side of the House. This evening, unexpectedly, we experienced it again. We want to give the hon. member the assurance that we find his insight into this matter quite astonishing.

It is true that clause 51, as amended by the Other Place, makes provision for the repeal of a number of measures which have become out of date, whether as a result of their inapplicability or in that they are no longer used. However, there is one aspect which seems to have escaped that hon. member, who was the chief spokesman on Bantu Affairs last year. During the debate last year, in a discussion of the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, it was stated on both sides of the House that the time had come for us to consolidate our Bantu legislation. The then hon. member for Johannesburg North, being at that time a very honourable member, and this side of the House …

Order! Is the hon. member now referring to an hon. member in this House?

No, Sir, I am referring to a former member. That hon. member, inter alia, spoke along those lines. And then there was a reply from the Ministry. They said that this matter would be looked into. In fact, it was said that a commission was appointed to investigate the consolidation of our Bantu legislation. This evening I read the first steps to be taken in that regard in clause 51.

We on this side of the House feel that it is very fitting that clause 1 be placed right at the beginning of the Bill because it interprets an entire view of life, it interprets a philosophy on which our policy, inter alia, is based, namely that freedom and harmony between the various population groups must be maintained. This specific section is not without a history. As far back as 1914, provision was made for a measure to control riotous assemblies and related matters. Provision was made for a restriction of any fomenting of hostility between White inhabitants and any other section of the population. This particular idea was continued in our existing Riotous Assemblies Act, Act No. 17 of 1956. In the same legislation we have the provision that specifically places a restriction on the engendering of hostility between White inhabitants and any other section of the population of this country of ours. It also concerns any matter which could have this effect. But long before this, and quite by chance, also under Nationalist rule, as far back as 1927 we placed a restriction on any action aiming to engender hostility between Bantu and Whites. The existing measure goes much further. The existing measure gives expression to our view that various sections of the population, which will have to go into the future together, must be accommodated in this country. That is why there is a sanction here against anyone who says or does anything with intent to cause feelings of hostility between these sections of the population. The times we are living in reflect that we, together with other sections of the population in this country, are threatened by one unified power. At this stage we identify it as communistic imperialism. In this regard, too, we tell the world that in co-operation with these population groups we shall not permit a division in our joint task of building a future for our children and the children of the various population groups. That is why we on this side of the House support this Bill. Even if there were to be criticism of the many other measures contained in this Bill before the House, I just want to say that it is nevertheless worth the trouble to sit much later than the prescribed time today if necessary, just to give this important measure to the Republic of South Africa. As regards the various other clauses which the hon. member mentioned to us, with which they are not satisfied or which they may even vote against, I want to tell you that hon. members on this side of the House will furnish entirely suitable replies. I believe that we shall unnerve every argument against this measure.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has just given us a passionate speech about the efforts of this Government to prevent racial hostility.

Do you not like it?

Yes, I do; I like it very much indeed. I am all in favour of any effort made by the Government to prevent racial hostility. But as other speakers from my party will further point out, it is necessary to have deeds as well as words. It is all very well to have these fine words about preventing hostility, but there are many Acts in South Africa which will have to be repealed before we can be quite sure that we are on the right path.

I agree with the hon. member for Griqualand East when he says that this is a Bill of many parts. Indeed, I would call it “Heinz’ Fifty-Seven Varieties”, although there are in fact only 54 clauses in this Bill. However, it contains so many provisions dealing with so many different portfolios that it is almost impossible to sort out which are in fact the main principles of this Bill. I personally am used to this; I must say that there has never been a session in this House when there has not been a General Law Amendment Bill right at the end of the session with a hotch-potch of clauses which make it very difficult for one to decide what the principle of the Bill is. I have had to follow one guide-line throughout these years: If a Bill contains a clause which is so objectionable that all the other non-contentious clauses, even all the good clauses, are outweighed by the enormity of that objectionable clause, I have voted against the Bill at the Second Reading.

[Inaudible].

I can give the hon. member many examples, if that is what he is after, of General Law Amendment Bills which have contained objectionable clauses. For instance, there was the Sobukwe clause, year after year. The Bills may have contained good clauses, but that was always the overriding one. I am glad to say that there is not such an obnoxious, overriding clause in the Bill that we are discussing tonight. Therefore we on these benches will be supporting the Second Reading of this General Law Amendment Bill.

You are coming right now, Helen!

No, I do not think I am coming right; maybe the Government is coming right. [Interjections]. There have been so many conciliatory noises being made that overseas …

Order! The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark must control himself.

You have to silence the chap next to him as well, Sir. He is just as bad. As I was saying, there have been so many conciliatory noises made by the Government both overseas and in South Africa these days that perhaps they are beginning to turn in the right direction.

There are some clauses in this Bill on which we would like further clarification. The hon. the Minister galloped through the Second Reading speech at a remarkable pace, and I cannot say that I managed to pick up all the points he was making. So I hope he will be patient and give us some further explanation on several clauses when we come to the Committee Stage. We are interested in particular in clauses 1, 2 and 40, to which I will return in a moment. There are several clauses which we wholeheartedly support and on which we need no further clarification. The most important one is, of course, clause 53, which the hon. member for Griqualand East has already mentioned. That is the clause that repeals the Masters and Servants Act. I will discuss that in more detail when we come to the Committee Stage. At this juncture I only want to say that the repeal of this law is long overdue. I have on many occasions mentioned in this House that this Act is medieval; it does not belong to a modern, civilized country. It should have been repealed many years ago. I would be interested to know from the hon. the Minister of the causes that have lead to the repeal of this Act. I doubt whether it is necessarily a change of heart in this particular instance; indeed I have rather a deep suspicion—and I must admit it is because of all the rude shocks that I have suffered in this House over many years which has led me to be so suspicious—and I would not be at all surprised if it was because of the objections of overseas trade unions to dealing with South African produce and mine products which they say are produced by this kind of labour. They have indeed gone so far—and of course it is an exaggeration—as to call it slave labour overseas. The hon. the Minister will know what I am talking about. He knows perfectly well. The Bantu Labour Act is also being repealed by clause 53 and he knows … [Interjections] …

Order!

… that there were considerable difficulties about the unloading of coal in America because of the objections of stevedores in this regard. However, I do not really mind what the cause is. I am just very glad that the Act is being repealed. It is true as the hon. member said that it did give protection to both masters and servants, but in point of fact, as it worked out in practice, much more protection was given to masters than to servants. The latest Police report reveals that in 1972 over 16 000 cases were sent for prosecution in respect of employees under the Masters and Servants Act. I do not say that they all resulted in convictions, but there were that many prosecutions. I doubt whether there were even a 100 prosecutions of masters under the Masters and Servants Act.

There is a group of clauses which appear to liberalise the liquor laws in this country. There has been a great deal of talk about barmaids, wine house licences, etc. I do not imagine that members on these benches will have any objections to these clauses. However, some of these clauses do seem to discriminate against the breweries in favour of the wine farmers. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us something about that.

Then, Sir, there is clause 21 which gives further protection to the legal profession in the drawing up of wills and the administration of estates. The hon. the Minister used the rather ugly word “touting” which I can imagine would cause a fair amount of consternation among the highly respectable institutions such as banks at which I feel this clause is specifically aimed. I hold no brief for lawyers in this particular regard and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is not perhaps increasing the costs to the general public by making it so difficult for the public to go outside the legal profession for the drawing up of wills and the administration of estates.

I am not going to deal in any detail with clauses 23 to 33, which have to do with the jurisdiction of magistrates. I think that is purely a lawyers’ argument and I am sure we have enough lawyers in the House who will be anxious to take part in the debate. I see that there is a clause which increases the jurisdiction of magistrates as far as traffic offences are concerned. I think that is reasonable enough in view of the fuel restrictions and the fact that magistrates are going to have to impose fairly strict fines for these offences. In any case, Sir, there is always a right of appeal and there is an automatic review of such cases. We have no objection to that.

We are worried about clause 40. The hon. the Minister galloped through this explanation. I cannot say that I heard anything he said very clearly. There was rather a lot of noise in the House at that time. I hope he will give us a more satisfactory explanation of why it is that under this Bill powers are being given to the State President to dissolve the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council which until now could only be dissolved by the natural effluxion of time after a period of five years.

The Minister is not here.

Well, then, I shall rely on the hon. the Minister of Justice. I am sure he has studied his brief very carefully, and that he will be able to give us the answers to this. My colleague, the hon. member for Sea Point, will be dealing with this matter in more detail and I shall not say any more about it.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us whether clause 47 was actually requested by the Indian Council.

Clause 1 will also be dealt with in more detail by the hon. member for Sea Point. I only want to say that I was suspicious of this when I first read it. I was worried about this clause because I wondered if it was a further infringement of the freedom of speech. As the hon. the Minister has pointed out, I realized that there was a similar section in the Bantu Administration Act of 1927 which made it a crime to generate hostility between Europeans, as they were known then, and Bantu. The present provision extends this prohibition to all sections of the population, in terms of the amendment that was accepted in the Senate. I must admit that I was worried about it at first. However, on reflection, I do not think there is anything in this clause that we will object to. Indeed, I think its intention is good. I think it is a good thing to, extend the scope of this provision. I believe that there has already been a test case to decide whether stringent criticism of a Government measure, for instance, can be considered as generating hostility between the races. There is already a decided case in this regard. I am relying on that to protect, for instance, members of my party who will no doubt criticize many Government measures very strongly indeed and more particularly where they apply to race relations. There is also a clause in the Rio tous Assemblies Act which to a lesser extent also touches upon the question of the creation of hostilities, namely the clause which prohibits the publication of any matter which can generate hostility. These precedents have been set in law. As I say, there is also the case which has already been decided regarding criticism of Government measures and so we have no hesitation in accepting the intention of this clause although my hon. friend will be discussing it in further detail and will possibly be making some further suggestions in relation to these particular provisions.

We have some reservations with regard to clause 2. We are worried about the extent of this clause. We do not think it is sufficiently limiting. We are concerned whether it could not perhaps stifle legitimate inquiry in relation to the wages, hours of work and so forth of employees in South Africa by overseas firms, either the parent firm or perhaps by newspapers which are interested in making surveys of wage conditions in South Africa. Here I am referring particularly to, let us say, The Guardian survey of the wage rates paid by British firms to Black employees in South Africa. I shall be interested to know whether this clause can in any way stifle that sort of inquiry or request for information.

That is all I have to say except that I want to repeat that clause 53 is one which we welcome most heartily. We shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

You still have three minutes left; why do you not use them?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Griqualand East said that he objects to the fact that a General Laws Amendment Bill is being introduced here. I want to tell the hon. member that during the eight years I have been in this House, a General Laws Amendment Bill has been introduced here each year. For as long as he has been in the House, a General Laws Amendment Bill has also been introduced each year, and I also want to point out to him that a General Laws Amendment Bill was introduced for the first time under United Party Government in 1935, and that such a Bill has been passed here every year since then. Why does he only complain now? Sir, if a measure such as this has been introduced each year from 1935 to 1975, for a period of 40 years, it is surely somewhat absurd to argue here this evening that a Bill such as this should not have been introduced. The hon. member must not complain this evening about a practice that was introduced by his Party and has been perpetuated here every year. The hon. member complains that this Bill is getting bigger and bigger, but, Sir, everything is growing; the country is growing and so is the hon. member. The hon. member wants to know why two specific acts are being amended in the General Laws Amendment Bill. I shall tell him why this has been done. There is a very simple reason. The procedure adopted here was as follows: We were informed that the Bills, of which notice was given, could not all be dealt with in the House, and we were then asked to grant preference to the most urgent Bills and to hold those over which were not so urgent. But this does not mean that the Bills which were held over were not essential. Now that the hon. member is being given an explanation, he must not start shaking his head. He must give me a chance to explain the position. After the two Bills, to which the hon. member referred, were held over, the General Laws Amendment Bill came up, and then it had to be decided what clauses or what Bills still had to be passed this session. I considered these two amendments to be essential, and I shall tell the hon. member why I thought so. I had reason to believe—I shall not tell the hon. member why—that the Opposition party would not contest these measures. I had good reason for thinking so. I was under the impression, as I still am—and the hon. member confirmed this—that there is no opposition to these clauses. As far as the amendments to the Liquor Act are concerned, the position is such that I included these amendments in this measure because we have here in the Cape a particularly lovely place which has been restored and for which we wish to consider a wine licence. It is a lovely spot which will advertise the Cape’s wines; it will advertise the fruits of the wine farmers’ farms. We are now approaching Christmas, and there is a possibility that a licence will be granted which will have great advertising value for the wine producers. The hon. member must tell me if he does not want me to give the Cape wine farmers that benefit. Sir, so much for the one Bill.

The other Bill concerns magistrates courts. The whole country knows under what pressure the Supreme Court and all the magistrates courts work. Increased jurisdiction is now being granted to the magistrates courts so that there can be a more proportionate division of work between the various courts in our country, and I think hon. members will agree with me that it is essential that this amendment be adopted. But the most important reason—I say this again—is that I had good reason to believe that the Opposition would not speak or vote against it, and now the Opposition is speaking out against it. In connection with the Master and Servants’ Act, the hon. member asked: “Has there been a change of attitude in the National Party?” With regard to the United Party asking whether there has been a change of attitude, we must remember that that is a party which has already changed its fundamental policy so often. It is virtually ludicrous for such a party to ask other persons whether they are changing. We are surely not living only in one moment of time; we have our sights on the future. What I am saying is that 1974 brings its own problems and solutions. That is the reason why we must review everything. We are not a stationary party; we are a party that looks around …

Then it will come right.

That may be so, but that hon. member is not coming right; that is the trouble; my problem is that he does not want to come right. [Interjections.] I am, in any case, very grateful to the two Opposition parties for telling me what clauses they support and what clauses they disagree about, because that indicates to this side of the House what matters can be debated.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. She indicated what clauses were acceptable to her party and asked me to tell her more about clause 40. Let me inform her that the amendment envisaged by clause 40 was requested by the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Are the hon. members for Pietersburg and Langlaagte entitled to read novels in this House which have nothing to do with “die wynboere”? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I am in the process of informing the House that the Executive Committee of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council expressed itself as follows on 3 November, 1971 (translation)—

That is the reason for this clause. There is nothing sinister in it. It is being included merely because the persons concerned themselves felt that they did not want to be bound to terms of five years but that, like the Government in respect of the House of Assembly, they should be in a position to decide for themselves when they want to hold an election. That is the only reason why this provision has been incorporated in the Bill.

About clause 1 the hon. member asked: “Is this an infringement of the freedom of speech?” At this stage I do not want to say more than: “No, it is not”. Later, in the Committee Stage, we can discuss the complexities of the clause, but I am already telling them that it is not a restriction of the freedom of speech.

The hon. member asked what the scope of clause 2 is. She also asked whether its scope could possibly be such that it would effect, for example, lawful inquiries in connection with wages that are paid, etc. My answer to her is that I do not think the scope of the clause is as wide as that. That is not the intention in any case. When the Bill is debated in the Committee Stage, I shall be in a better position to explain to the hon. member precisely what its scope is, because I see that the hon. member’s party has presented me with a long drawn-out amendment which they would like to move. It would therefore be better if we dealt with this in the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, we support the principle incorporated in this clause. We have already indicated our acceptance of that principle. I would like to deal now with the practical and detailed application of this clause. I want to do so in as responsible a manner as his subject demands. One of the fundamental issues of political life in South Africa is the relationship between population groups. As the clause has been amended in the Other Place, this deals specifically with population groups and not with sections of the population or with Bantu and Whites. In other words, it extends the prohibition on the incitement of hostility between White and Black to all the population groups of South Africa. This is an admirable objective, an objective for which we on this side of the House have pleaded for a long, long time. It is an objective which we wish that side of the House had taken a little note of when it had amongst it certain members no longer with them. It is an attitude which we wish that side of the House had taken with members who are still with them in this House. I want to deal with one specific instance, where I believe the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is in charge of this Bill, should act in relation to the fostering of feelings of hostility between sections or population groups. I referred to one of his colleagues who, not in his Dr. Jekyll, but in his Mr. Hyde capacity, made the notorious “Boerehaat” speech and the “Boerehaat” political campaign some two years ago. If this Government seriously wants to act against the incitement of racial hostility or hostility between sections or groups of our population, then it had the perfect example in the hon. the Minister of Defence. He set out on a planned political campaign to stir up and to inflame feelings between population groups in South Africa. [Interjections.] I want to deal with this because I said before that I and the hon. the Minister of Defence can work together on defence matters …

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to cover such a wide political field at this stage, when the details of the clause as such are under discussion? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

I want to emphasize that I am dealing with this in the pure political field. I am dealing with the hon. the Minister of Defence in his capacity as a politician and as leader of the National Party in the Cape. I want to ask the Government whether it is now in fact sincere in its determination to put a stop to this sort of incitement, this sort of inflaming of feeling based upon the identity of a population group or a section of the population or a section of a group in South Africa. We are dealing here with an amendment of a law which will enable the Government to put a stop to this sort of thing. I want to ask whether the hon. absent member for Waterberg, when he talks of discrimination, will be dealt with as something which incites feelings of hostility. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development when he allows, in fact instructs, action to be taken which creates resentment and bitterness amongst a section of the population …

There is nothing about that in the clause.

This clause provides that you must not cause, encourage or foment feelings of hostility between different population groups. What can do more to cause, encourage or foment feelings of hostility than actions by members of the Government towards a racial group which affect that racial groups dignity, their status as human beings and their share of the sunshine of South Africa? I submit that the incitement, the encouragement or fomenting of feelings of hostility is encouraged by the colleagues of the very Minister who is introducing this clause. The hon. the Minister of Defence is prepared to talk about “Boerehaat” and “die Engelse” who don’t fit in and who have no place in South Africa, “die Engelse” who have no patriotism, and the Minister is prepared to challenge the patriotism of some of his fellow South Africans. This is as serious a political fomentation of hostility as the action of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. [Interjections.]

We are supporting this clause, but we are supporting it in the hope that this hon. Minister and the Cabinet which has approved of this will start to apply it where it matters most, namely at home. It is at home, within the ranks of the Government, that this clause must first be applied. That is the point. It is not the agitator and the communist who are doing it in another way and who can be dealt with under different laws. This clause strikes at the fomenting of feelings of hostility. Look at hon. members around me who are interjecting and who are using up their quota as they have used my quota. [Interjections.] When these hon. members leave this House for their report-back meetings, particularly when there is no newspaperman present, you should hear what they say, Sir. The hon. member for Welkom, I have seen him up on a chair shouting “donder hom”.

Order! I think the hon. member is taking the discussion a little too far now.

I accept your ruling. I just want to say that he did not succeed. Finally I want to say that I reacted to some of the interjections because sometimes one is misled, but I want to conclude on a very serious note, which I believe is fitting to the end of a session and which marks the threshold of a crisis period in South Africa’s political history. I believe that, in the critical time ahead, the greatest crime, a crime which can be equated with treason, will be to incite or foment or to encourage hostility between the sections of the population of South Africa. I hope that this clause will be applied in that spirit in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member took this opportunity to make a purely political speech. The hon. member had before him a clause that placed on record the best intentions of this Government and of the legislator. In a number of instances the hon. member misrepresented in the House what had been said in the past by the hon. the Minister of Defence. He said that the hon. the Minister had stood up here “to stir up feelings between groups”. But surely that is not true. He said that the hon. member had stood up “to stir up hatred”. Surely the hon. member for Durban Point is speaking absolute rot.

Mr. Chairman, is the word “rot” not unparliamentary?

I can give the hon. member for Mooi River the assurance that however one refers to the speech by the hon. member for Durban Point, it remains rot. The hon. member based his case on certain things which the hon. the Minister of Defence had supposedly said or meant, but which the hon. the Minister had not said or meant. The hon. the Minister of Defence spoke about Boerehaat. However, the hon. the Minister certainly did not use those words to incite hatred on the part of the farmers or anyone else. However, the hon. the Minister rightly pointed out that the attitude of certain other population groups to Afrikaans-speaking people was not always correct.

Read Hansard.

It is because that reference was such an accurate one and because it pinpointed the problem so well that it hurts hon. members opposite so much. The hon. member also referred to the hon. member for Waterberg and said that when the latter spoke about discrimination, he incited race feeling. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that there is always sound debating from this side of the House.

Is that so?

Nowhere can one say that the hon. member has incited race hatred and hostility among the population groups. The hon. member went on and in his most serious charge stated that this side of the House had acted in a way that affected race groups in South Africa, that took their dignity from them and that took from them their “life in the sunshine”. But what is the truth in this regard? Up to now, no other government in South Africa has done more for the non-White population groups in South Africa than this very Government. No other government has ever done more to afford other population groups in South Africa a place in the sun. No other government in South Africa has done more to provide these people with educational and housing facilities. I want to go further since we have had these slanderous words from the hon. member for Durban Point. No other Government in Africa has done more than has the South African Government to afford its non-Whites and under-developed peoples a place in the sun. No other Government in Africa has done more …

Draw it mild!

… to create an awareness in the non-White nations in South Africa and to train and develop them.

But, Sir, if you really want an example of the provoking of hostile feelings between groups, you should take a look at what the hon. member for Yeoville and his Young Turks have been up to in the United Party. A great deal of discord has been provoked between the groups there.

Tell us.

If the hon. member would in fact like to hear what kind of rousing of feelings this side of the House will object to, I want to refer the House to remarks made by the hon. member for Yeoville in the days when he was still in the Provincial Council, when he accused Afrikaners in general of having been selling skins in the days when he and his people were supposedly already swaggering around and developed.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Durban Point seeks examples. He must talk to the hon. member for Yeoville if he wants to hear about scandalous behaviour to be ashamed about.

You are the biggest disgrace there is.

The hon. member has done one thing which I have not yet done. Not once in my life have I ever insulted a group of people, but he has. That is the difference between us. It is not on record that I have insulted any group of people in South Africa. It is on record that the hon. member insulted the Afrikaner.

You are telling an untruth.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. member for Yeoville say that the hon. member for Pretoria Central is the biggest disgrace living?

Order! No. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member for Yeoville also said that the hon. member for Pretoria Central told an untruth.

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member may say that I am telling an untruth, but he knows that it stands on record that he insulted the Afrikaners. This is an example of what the hon. member for Durban Point should have quoted.

It is an untruth.

I also want to put it to the hon. member that he himself interpreted it in such a way that he subsequently had to apologize. Why, then, did the hon. member subsequently asked to be forgiven, if it was not true?

I never insulted Afrikaners; that is untrue.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to Mr. Danie Hough, an M.P.C., a man who is an Afrikaner. He insulted that man in his capacity as an Afrikaner and then apologized.

That is untrue. I attacked Danie Hough and not the Afrikaners. You know that.

Sir, let us come back to the clause. We see that the clause specifies that there must be intent before it applies. Before a person is guilty of an offence, he must have the intent to cause hostility amongst various population groups of the Republic.

As you are doing now.

I want to give that hon. member the assurance that he cannot level that kind of charge at me.

Go and fight outside, you two.

Because this clause relates to a specific attitude, it will not restrict or prejudice any proper political debate in South Africa.

Even Cas rejects you.

Because this section relates to a specific intent, one can undoubtedly argue, and one must argue about conduct that could possibly give rise to these very feelings being caused. Because this measure gives admirable expression to the best intentions and the highest ideals of the legislator and the Government, we may support this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to intervene in the altercation between the hon. member for Pretoria Central and the hon. member for Yeoville. Perhaps they can go and settle the matter outside this House. On the whole the hon. member for Pretoria Central is a convincing kind of speaker: I like his style and his line of action. I must say, however, that he never shows to less advantage than when he tries to protect the hon. the Minister of Defence as regards his remarks concerning either “Boerehaat” or the foreign situation or the way people in Africa are acting towards South Africa. He was most unconvincing. The hon. member for Pretoria Central had better confine himself to the provisions of the Bill rather than to take up the cudgels for the hon. the Minister of Defence.

†I want to discuss this clause against the background of this House and the position of South Africa today. There have been momentous statements and important events. There have been the debate in the United Nations; there has been the declaration by the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation; there has been Mr. Pik Botha’s speech and there has been that of the Prime Minister in the Other Place. All these together have created a situation in which the wording and the intention of this clause have a very special meaning. First of all this clause uses very deliberately, because it was amended in the Other House, the words “different population groups” and not “different nations”.

*There is nothing about multi-nationalism in the Bill. This clause contains no reference to separate nations or peoples. All are components of one population, one South African population. The acceptance of this clause, as it appears in the Bill, would negate everything we have heard about separate nations in South Africa over the past few weeks. [Interjections.] That is so.

†Read the clause very carefully.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Could you give me a definition of a population group?

It refers to the population groups of the Republic; not to separate nations.

*They are groups within one population. It is one population … [Interjections.] These are people who all form part of the South African population. [Interjections.] They are not separate nations.

†Mr. Chairman, I hope hon. members on the other side are accepting this as it stands. This will be the end of “veelvolkig-held”.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Hon. members may all take part in this debate. What I want to bring to the notice of hon. members on that side is that this Bill, as it reads at the moment, is throwing overboard the whole philosophical approach of “veelvolkigheid”. [interjections.] The clause refers only to groups. Therefore we are now only talking about groups within one population.

†Now we are only dealing with groups within one population. Once we do that, the whole philosophy of separate nations goes overboard. I hope hon. members on the other side, once they have accepted this clause, will no longer stand up and say that we can justify what we are doing on the grounds of “aparte nasieskap of veelvolkigheid” and that they would accept that we have one population and one South African nation. There are groups within that nation. We accept that. But what we do not have, is a series of separate nations operating in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is a fundamental and cardinal point. If the hon. members on the other side vote for this clause as it stands they are in fact negating the whole concept of separate nationhood for the separate population groups of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I do not want to argue against that; I do not want to move any amendment to this. The basis of this clause is that there is one population within which there are various groups. We are one nation and we are one population. We must act as one population within one political and constitutional dispensation.

†That is the first point I want to make. I believe this is a very cardinal point against the background of the debate which has taken place in this House. I hope the hon. member for Carletonville in particular will support me on this. I hope that he will say that we can accept a clause which says we are one population and that there are groups but not separate nations because this denies the concept of separate nationhood and it accepts the situation of a single nation within which there are various groups differing in race and colour. [Interjections.]

Order!

You are absolutely wrong.

I should like to hear the explanations of the hon. members on the other side, especially the hon. the Minister of Justice. He should explain why he repudiates the whole philosophy of the Prime Minister. He repudiates what the hon. the Prime Minister said in an interview with Newsweek only the other day. He said it is not a question of discriminating between groups; he said it is not a question of groups within the population. He said we should be compared with Europe where there are separate nations. When there are separate nations, it is not a question of groups. Here the hon. the Minister of Justice comes along and says to his own members that they should discard the philosophy of a nation and accept the philosophy of separate groups within one South African nation.

There is a second point, and this we must see also against the background of the solemn undertakings given on behalf of the South African Government to the Security Council by our Ambassador to the U.N., Mr. Pik Botha. This deals with race discrimination. Mr. Chairman, I put it to you. If one is going to be accused of fermenting of hostility among different population groups, what action is more calculated to ferment hostility among population groups than to discriminate between groups on the ground of race or colour? I want to ask hon. members opposite: Can they think of anything which is more calculated to create hostility among the population groups than acts of race discrimination? I want to know whether they agree with this. Does the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation agree that discrimination on the grounds of race and colour must automatically promote feelings of hostility? I want to know whether this is true or whether it is not true.

Define discrimination.

The hon. member says “Define discrimination”. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister. I think the time has come for us, whether in the United Party, the Progressive Party or the Nationalist Party, following the solemn declaration by the Ambassador for South Africa at the United Nations, where he said in all solemnity—

This was before the Security Council—

I suggest that we should make it quite clear in the clause that to advocate discrimination or to practise it ipso facto means that one is promoting hostility among the races. I believe that every action of members in this House, every word uttered by hon. members on the other side, which advocates or practises discrimination, automatically inflames race relations in South Africa. I believe that if hon. members opposite are really serious, if they accept the fact that Mr. Pik Botha put himself out on a limb for them and that he has pledged them to get rid of race discrimination because race discrimination inflames feelings of hostility, then the hon. the Minister should include in this clause a provision which states that we as the Parliament of South Africa say that if one discriminates on the grounds of race or colour, one is in fact inflaming racial hostility among the various race groups. Where we are in the position now when the eyes of Black Africa and the eyes of the Western world are focused upon us, when three Western nations are now looking to us for an act of faith to support this statement by our Ambassador, Mr. Pik Botha, when the Black and Brown people of South Africa are looking to this House for a lead, I put it to the hon. the Minister: Would he not consider including an amendment to this clause to make it quite clear that any act of race discrimination will be considered an act of hostility towards or of inflaming feelings among the various race groups? If we do not do this, the provision as it is remains vague and ambiguous. The hon. member for Innesdal asked me to define “discrimination”. I believe that the time has come for this House to define the meaning of the words it uses, because the outside world is watching this House and the outside world is watching Mr. Pik Botha. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, firstly I want to reply to the hon. member for Durban Point. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am not a kill-joy, and that I can take a joke on a Wednesday evening as well as the next man. I know that the hon. member for Durban Point only came here this evening to crack a few jokes, for that is what he tried to do.

When one is two bricks and a tickey high, one makes personal remarks.

You can keep your personal remarks to yourself. Your appearance is no different to mine. If you want to stand in front of a mirror, I can do so too. Other fellows might put me to shame, but never you. I just want to tell the hon. member this. Here we have a positive measure, this clause, in which we are trying to prevent the various population groups from quarrelling with one another. In the Other Place we accepted an amendment moved by his party in which they told us that they did not want this for the “sections of the population”, but for population groups. We conceded that amendment. I am now presenting this measure to this House, and I expected in all honesty that the hon. members would rise and congratulate this side of the House on a positive measure which is trying to ensure that Whites and non-Whites can coexist peacefully, but instead of that, I had to listen to a senseless scrimmaging over the word “Boerehaat” and the Minister of Defence. Sir, I cannot understand what ails the hon. member to come here and make a speech of that nature on this kind of clause. This clauses rises far above the depths to which the hon. member dragged the debate on this clause. As I have said, Sir, I am not a kill-joy; I can appreciate a joke, but here we are dealing with a clause in regard to which I hoped that the members of the Parliament of South Africa would recognize the greatness of this occasion, and would sound a positive note and tell us that we were on the right road. Sir, I now want to reply to the charges made by the hon. member in regard to the so-called “Boerehaat”. That party should be the last to talk about discrimination between one person and another. The hon. member knows as well as I do that our great struggle in South Africa is in fact to get people of their ilk to move forward together in the 20th century. The verkramptes and the obstructionists (verstoptes) are not sitting on this side of the House. Sir, one finds the colonial mentality on that side of the House. Sir, in what province are the Black people paid the lowest wages? I do not want to quarrel with English-speaking people here. There are many good English-speaking people in South Africa. But the hon. member must not point a finger at the Afrikaners when it comes to race discrimination. I want to tell the hon. member that the party on this side of the House is the only party which has, in politics, looked after the Black people and the Brown people. Under Afrikaner Governments the Black people received homelands; under Afrikaner Governments the Black people received chief ministers, and Black diplomats were sent overseas; under an Afrikaner Government the Brown people received a Coloured Persons’ Council; under an Afrikaner Government possibilities were created for these people, but when the United Party was in power, they gave the non-Whites a Minister, but that Minister was to do nothing—those were his instructions. The hon. member must not come here and be politically hypocritical. Sir, I did not want to quarrel with him this evening on these points.

Order! The hon. the Minister may not use the words “politically hypocritical”; he must withdraw them.

May I then say “hypocritical”, Mr. Chairman?

No.

May I not say “politically hypocritical”?

No.

May I say that it is ambivalence?

Yes, but the hon. the Minister must withdraw the words “politically hypocritical”.

Sir, I withdraw them. Sir, I come now to the hon. member for Sea Point. Those hon. members pose here as the enlightened party. If there are Young Turks, then they are supposed to be sitting in those benches. The hon. member came forward here with what he regarded as being a trick question; he asked me to say what “different population groups” meant. Is the hon. member unable to understand that the Zulu are a nation in themselves and that the Xhosa are a nation in themselves, but that the Zulu and the Xhosa are different population groups? A Frenchman and a German belong to two different nations, but there can be different population groups in those nations. There are Germanic and there are Romanic population groups; that is what a population group means. But I cannot make the hon. member understand anything he cannot or will not understand. The hon. member rose here to try to make a little political capital. He challenged me; he said: “The time has come for us to take a step forward”. Sir, yesterday an application was made for a Coloured restaurant to be opened in Sea Point, and they are still looking for a place in Sea Point where they can open a restaurant for these people. Now I am asking him whether he is prepared to support this in public. [Interjections.] Is he prepared to support the establishment of such a restaurant in Sea Point, and will he tell me where it should be established? He must tell me precisely where in Sea Point, and then he must make sure that it is not in Green Point; it must be in Sea Point. Is the hon. member prepared to rise and reply to this question?

Yes.

Very well, but then I also want to know from the hon. member what his standpoint in respect of the Sea Point swimming baths is. If he advocates no race discrimination, he must state this now, so that Black and White can know that it will be possible for them all to swim in those swimming baths. He will then be honest towards his party and towards the people of South Africa, and then the Progressive Party will not be sitting here as those people do who enjoy apartheid, who buy apartheid, and then blame this side of the House for everything. I want to tell the hon. member again that this side of the House is honest towards the Black people and the Brown people. We tell them where they stand and where we stand, and they know what our policy is. We retain our identity and they retain their identity, and in their areas they can do what they like, and there they can be full-fledged people, while we are full-fledged people here. That is our policy and that is what we are working to achieve.

That is not what Pik Botha said.

I shall tell you what Pik Botha said. He said that we are getting rid of discrimination. We are doing this. Here you have one of the measures in which we are doing this. We are making it an offence if trouble is wilfully fomented between the population groups of South Africa. Why did the hon. member not rise immediately and congratulate the hon. the National Party on this step forward? Instead of that the hon. member came here and played politics. [Interjections.] I am afraid that it was not a favourable kind of political game. We should very much like to hear these replies from the hon. member. We want to hear them sounding a clear note in Sea Point, and we are only sorry there is not another election in a few months’ time.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says this was a great step forward. I want to suggest that in fact it is taking over the 1927 Act and merely updated it to see that it does not only apply to Whites and Blacks, but to the various population groups. It takes one no further than 1927, but I suppose that catching up to 1927 is a great step forward for the National Party. [Interjections.] It takes us no further; it takes us back to that situation with an adjustment to take into account the various population groups.

The hon. the Minister can say that the Black people and the Brown people know where they are under the National Party. This may well be, but this is not what Mr. Pik Botha said at the United Nations. What is important is that we should be getting away from old attitudes. He says that we are getting away from apartheid. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Pik Botha used the hon. the Minister of Sport to emphasize what he was saying. He was asked:

Mr. Botha then replied—

Listen to this very carefully. He continued—

[Interjections.] I want to say that the eyes of the United Nations, the eyes of Black South Africa, the eyes of the Blacks, are watching. I think it is important that we should clarify our minds on what we mean by this issue. [Interjections.] I want to say that the reason why my name was mentioned in connection with this report was that I already had discussions on this issue with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development. I discussed the matter with him. There is a committee which is trying to sort out this matter. We are dealing now with a restaurant for Blacks in Sea Point and in all the other White areas where Black and Coloured people are required to live in order to serve the needs of the White community.

What is your standpoint?

No, I am saying that there should be such facilities. Wherever Black or Brown people are required to live they should have the ordinary facilities for leading a decent life. In respect of Sea Point it does involve that if people are living there they should have restaurants and other facilities.

Will you allow them to swim in the swimming bath?

Let me deal with one point at a time. My name was mentioned because I am actively pursuing this matter. Ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development; ask the mayor of Cape Town and ask Wimpy. I was actively pursuing this matter to see that this one area of discrimination, which has resulted from the application of the Group Areas Act in South Africa, is removed as far as the Black and the Brown people living in Sea Point were concerned.

Order! I want to ask hon. members please to confine themselves to the question of whether or not the clause should be accepted in its present form. They must not extend their remarks to all the matters that could be related to it, for then almost every party’s policy could be discussed and we do not want to turn this into a political debate.

Mr. Chairman, I must abide by your ruling. May I briefly and without in any way flouting your ruling, Mr. Chairman, deal with the other point, namely the question of amenities, which was put to me by the hon. the Minister? I believe that this clause should be amended in such way as to make it quite clear that we are working towards a South Africa in which all people have access to all public amenities.

Swimming facilities?

Yes, swimming baths and beaches.

Was that your attitude before the election?

I believe this is the kind of South Africa to which we should move and to which we in Parliament should apply our minds and our energies. I believe that that was what Mr. Pik Botha was saying. I do not argue that within the context of a racist South Africa which one has today with the Group Areas Act and all the rest of it, that South Africa could be changed overnight in a revolutionary way.

Order! I want to emphasize once again that hon. members should please not try to say everything that could be related to this clause. They must say whether or not the clause should be accepted.

I believe that this clause should be accepted and I still put it to the hon. the Minister …

Will you vote for it?

Of course we shall vote for it. The hon. member for Houghton made this clear. I want to make it quite clear in the first place that in voting for this clause we are voting for the concept of a single South African nation in which there are groups and not separate South African nations. Secondly, I believe that the Minister would do well in the interests of South Africa if he would make it clear that discrimination on the grounds of race and colour, whether it be by way of our definition or by way of his definition, should disappear and that anybody who advocates discrimination on the grounds of race or colour is deemed to be inflaming racial feelings among the various sections of the population. I believe it is important and that attitude should be expressed by the Minister. If he will not accept it by way of an amendment, I ask him to announce to this House that henceforth as far as he and his Government are concerned, anybody who advocates race discrimination will be deemed to be inflaming feelings of hostility between the various population groups.

Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting for the hon. member for Sea Point to explain to us precisely what his standpoint was, prior to the election, in regard to the Sea Point swimming baths. [Interjections.] If the hon. member speaks of unity in South Africa, and has only one South Africa in mind, with no race discrimination whatsoever, I ask him why he is looking for a restaurant for Coloureds. Why is he not trying to ensure that the Coloureds are quite simply allowed into the ordinary restaurant.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member wants all restaurants to be open to all people. Am I correct?

Order! The hon. the Minister must confine himself to the question of whether or not the clause should be adopted in this form.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I want to start off by saying to the hon. the Minister that in principle there is no difference between us in regard to the object which is sought to be achieved by this clause. What I think is important is that we should analyse what that object is, seek to agree upon that object and then see whether that object is in fact being achieved by this clause. [Interjections.] If I have the floor, Sir, I would appreciate it if you would indicate that to hon. members who seem to be confused. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Yeoville a chance to complete his speech.

May I, in case I forget to do so afterwards, move formally as an amendment—

I think that the two issues that need to be considered here are, firstly, that the information which is sought relates to a business and to the furnishing of information and, secondly, how that information may be procured. The first difficulty I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to—and he might well find in future that a further amendment may be required—is that the information that is restricted is information which relates to any business, whether carried on in or outside the Republic. In other words, it relates to a business and a business only. Business has been defined as “anything which occupies the time and the attention of a man for profit”. That is the legal interpretation in our courts and I stress the word “profit”, because if in fact it is an activity which is not being conducted for profit, it would not fall under the provisions of this clause. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that there are other activities in South Africa which are being conducted not for profit, and which in the public interest should fall under the purview of this particular clause.

The second point I would like to make is that when we deal with the restriction of information we normally deal with such information as it may arise either because it is not in the public interest that it should be furnished, in which case we have the Official Secrets Act to prevent it, or because, in matters of civil law, there are business secrets or degrees of privacy that need to be protected from outside. The question that arises here is: What actually is the mischief that this piece of legislation is seeking to deal with? As we are informed and as we read the situation there can be two sets of mischief which this is directed at. The first is that we understand, and so we are told, that there are monopoly laws in the United States of America in terms of which it is sought to obtain evidence in order to deal with activities which emanate from the Republic of South Africa and which concern our activities here. The second is that there may be outside authorities, whether they be courts of law or whether they be statutory authorities, which seek to obtain information in South Africa in order to do injury to South Africa. Perhaps there are two examples which we may deal with here in order to determine whether it is this type of thing which the hon. the Minister is concerned with. There was the committee which was appointed by the United Kingdom Government in order to investigate wage conditions in subsidiaries of British companies. There was an endeavour in that committee to seek to persuade South Africans to give evidence before it, an endeavour which I think was not a very successful one. The second is that there is legislation pending and has been pending for some little while, before the American House of Representatives concerning what are called fair employment practices. There again there may be an endeavour to obtain information. Where there is an endeavour to interfere in the internal affairs of South Africa and to seek to obtain information in order to do harm to South Africa there is no doubt that this side of the House will support any reasonable endeavours on the part of the Government in order to protect South Africa’s interests. The United Kingdom has a piece of legislation restricting an infringement of the jurisdiction which under international law belongs to the United Kingdom. It would be interesting if all nations obeyed that and if what belonged to us in South Africa under international law were protected in so far as their activities are concerned. Unfortunately, however, they do tend to interfere in our affairs in South Africa, and for that reason the principle of this piece of legislation is accepted by this side of the House.

The question is what is meant in this piece of legislation by the term “order, direction or letters of request”. It is perfectly true that when a lawyer in a court of law talks about an order, he may well mean an order of court. However, the word “order” does not only mean order of court. It can mean any of a number of things, even to lawyers, and I have here a number of legal dictionaries in order to show what meanings can be attached to the word “order”. There is a multiplicity of meanings. In the commercial sense, for example, a bill may be payable to order, in other words here the word means a direction. In a commercial sense an order, as used in the particular case of Field v. Manlove, referred also to an order relating to the taking of orders during business transactions. Orders can also mean instructions given by employers to employees. To act under someone’s orders does not mean to act under an order of court. It can mean that one is acting under the instruction of an individual. The rules of interpretation of statutes state that one must interpret words in their ordinary meanings. If we interpret the word “order” in its ordinary meaning, the word is not restricted to orders of court, nor is it restricted to orders which emanate from another statutory authority other than a court or from a Government. A master and servant relationship can result in an order being given.

The second word is “direction”. The word “direction” has not got a particular legal meaning, and again the legal dictionaries give some assistance here. For example, when a person acts under the direction of a doctor, this does not refer to a court order. There is no implication that the instruction emanates from a court. To act under someone’s direction is normally applicable to an employer/employee relationship. A subsidiary company in South Africa of a holding company overseas may have directors acting under directions. This is consequently not restricted to legal proceedings.

The term “letter of request” has a meaning to those of us who have practised law, but it does not have a specific legal meaning. What is interesting is that in England, for example, the term “letter of request” refers to communications between diocesan courts, not between courts of law. Quite clearly, therefore, the term is not restricted to legal proceedings. If it is intended that the words should be restricted in meaning to either requests or orders or directions which emanate from a court, a government or a statutory authority, then this is logical. However, if the matter goes further, as I respectfully believe it will, the commercial transactions of South Africa will be inhibited. In fact, investment in South Africa will be inhibited, and it will inhibit people giving legitimate information concerning business activity in South Africa to people overseas. For the purpose of encouraging investment in South Africa. If that is the case, as we believe it is, then this clause is too wide. It will do harm to South Africa. In fact, it will not result in the protection we require. It will create problems for us in South Africa. For that reason we feel that the amendment we are moving is in accordance with what we believe to be the intention. [Time expired.]

: Mr. Chairman, in the first instance I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Yeoville for having agreed, on behalf of his party, to support the principle contained in this clause. To my mind there are really no problems as far as this aspect is concerned. We know that in the Netherlands, certain states in Canada and also in other countries they have provisions of the same nature as those contained here in clause 2. The wording followed in the Dutch legislation is more or less the same as that of this clause.

The hon. member for Yeoville made interesting remarks on the definition of “business”, inter alia, that this only related to a case where business was being carried on for the purposes of profit. However, he did not move an amendment on that aspect. I would therefore suggest that in this regard “business” be viewed in the broader sense of the word.

Then the hon. member advanced certain arguments in connection with the words “order, direction or letters of request”. He quoted from English dictionaries in connection with the meaning of these words in separate contexts. In other words, he quoted the meaning of “order” in a separate context, that of “direction” in a separate context, and that of “letters of request” in a separate context. Now, we know that the Foreign Courts Evidence Act lays down a procedure which is to be followed when evidence has to ge obtained in regard to a case which is settled in a foreign country. We also know that section 33 of the Supreme Court Act refers to “letters of request”. I want to suggest that those three terms which are used should be seen as a whole, i.e. as an order, or direction or letter of request, and that, in the application of the eiusdem generis rule, these three terms be regarded as being merely an extension of the letter of request to which reference is made in legislation of this nature. For that reason I would also suggest that it be argued that this order emanates from a public body. By suggesting that such an order should only emanate from a public body or a statutory authority, the hon. member is to my mind limiting the meaning of this clause too much. We in South Africa do not know what bodies are vested with statutory authority in countries such as Venezuela, Peru, Senegal or in a federal canton in Switzerland. One would have to ascertain every time whether the body making a request to a South African organization or business is in fact a court of law or a statutory authority. For that reason I think that whereas the meaning of this clause already amounts to there being a measure of coercion when such a request is made in respect of a business, this clause ought to be left just as it is.

Mr. Chairman, to start off with I should like to say that we are in full agreement with the principle. In a practical sense we are grateful for it. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister that as I understand it, the clause has two purposes. The first is the protection of people who for one reason or another find themselves within the jurisdiction of a foreign court and who are then asked by their employer-deemed in whatever terms in the jurisdiction of that court to be one and the same for the purposes of jurisdiction—to produce evidence from a foreign country. This will serve as a defence certainly against being charged with a criminal offence. For instance, if someone in America is deemed to be an agent of a company and therefore is the company, and the American court attempts to get evidence from, say, the United Kingdom, this sort of law is a defence for the person concerned. The second is that it prevents a court of any country attempting to establish jurisdiction or to subpoena someone in South Africa. We are in favour of both these purposes and it follows very much the same course as in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and Canada. Basically the main impetus which lies behind the necessity to introduce legislation such as this, has been attempts by court in the United States of America to claim extra-territorial jurisdiction. We are in full agreement that this should be resisted. However, we have two reservations in regard to the clause as it now stands. I therefore move the amendments standing in my name. These amendments basically attempt to narrow the scope of this clause. The hon. the Minister has, in any event, got a copy of my amendments and therefore I do not think it is necessary to read them out. [Interjections.] I gave a copy to the hon. member for Yeoville.

I have got one.

Take the House into your confidence.

I shall therefore read out my amendment. They are—

What we are trying to do here is to narrow the field down to the sphere of the law where we are trying to protect businesses which may operate in South Africa in a perfectly legal way from interference from outside. That is why we are attempting to go further than the hon. member for Yeoville in trying to restrict this as far as possible to those directly concerned with a South African business, i.e., someone who is a director, an officer or an employee or who in any sense has an interest in such business.

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of points I should like to deal with to pursue the argument I was advancing but I think I must in the first instance reply to the hon. member for Brakpan. I think there are two particular points on which he is mistaken. The first is that it is a well-known legal maxim that where terms are defined in one statute, that definition may not be used in order to interpret the same words in another statute. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me on that point. The fact that these terms have a particular meaning in a particular statute in which they are defined, is of no assistance in this statute at all. This is the problem. It is a real problem. The second point is that the eiusdem generis rule does not apply to this because the eiusdem generis rule is in fact merely a rule of law in terms of which certain words of a lesser category are interpreted in relation to those of a higher category. It does not apply here at all because these are three independent words. A eiusdem generis rule will not apply in any way at all.

The matter that concerns me most in relation to what the hon. member for Brakpan said—I hope that the hon. the Minister does not agree with him—is that he said that in fact by restricting the words, these three words, to orders, directions or letters of request emanating either from a court of law or from a statutory authority, we were narrowing it down because we might in fact wish to apply it to other matters. He said that there might be other people who might wish to ask for this. This is the very mischief that we are seeking to avoid. This is one of the difficulties I find in regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. In addition to requests, directions and orders which emanate from a common court, tribunal or authority, as he expressed it, he includes the word “litigant”. In other words, a private person could in effect make a request or order and give a direction. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this is part of the mischief that we are seeking to avoid. Private people should not be restricted in what they wish to ask. I think that the simple situation is that if the security of the State and interests of the State are not affected by it, there should be free communication of commercial information in order to encourage investment. I think we will all agree on that. I think it is only where in fact the interests of the State are involved that we should concern ourselves about this kind of matter.

It may clearly be in the interests of the State that there should be intervention in regard to matters concerning monopolies. If there is an order of court then in fact the Minister can decide whether the evidence should be given or not. However, if there is a private request with regard to a matter where the interests and the security of the State are not at issue, then it must be for the person to whom that request is directed to decide whether to answer it or not. That is the only way in which we can have reasonable business communication. For that reason my party cannot support the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I think that he is in fact going further than is required. There are also other problems in regard to his amendment in that he states “in which any person resident or registered in the Republic has an interest or is a director, officer or employee”. In other words, one could have a wholly owned subsidiary in regard to a matter which is in no way concerned with anything in South Africa, and if there is one employee, it would mean that this would apply. With respect, I am afraid that this amendment is not one that we can support.

I also want to say that I think we should apply our minds here to what may well be a real problem. A South African citizen may go to the United States and find himself in a situation there where he is sub-poeaned and held to give evidence. If he does not give that evidence, he will be committing an offence there and might possibly be prosecuted for it, or in some other country, and if he does give the evidence, he will be committing an offence in South Africa. We shall be placing people in a tremendously invidious position if in fact an amendment is not accepted in the form in which we have suggested it should be. If in fact this amendment is not accepted, we will find a situation where investment in South Africa may be adversely affected. I am quite sure that hon. members on all sides of the House would not want to do anything which could harm any form of investment in this country. We believe that in these circumstances the hon. the Minister should accept our amendment in order to ensure that South Africa’s commercial interests and business interests are not in any way adversely affected.

Sir, I rise to tell the hon. member that he is reading into this clause matters for which the clause does not make any provision at all. For instance, he attaches no meaning to words such as “notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law or legal rule” which, if read in conjunction with the concept of letters of request, indicate very clearly that we are dealing here with that act for which provision is made in section 33 of the Supreme Court Act. But, Sir, this extension deals with a very important point, and that is that in cases where it concerns matters mentioned in clause 2, a judge must also give his attention to a certificate issued by the Minister of Economic Affairs. In other words, the judge attending to this matter has to do all the things prescribed in section 33, but he also has to have the assurance that the Minister of Economic Affairs did issue a certificate.

It never comes before a judge.

It is very clear, therefore, that when such a certificate is issued, the Minister of Economic Affairs will attend to the matters mentioned in clause 2. Consequently I fail to see the relevance of the hon. member’s argument.

Sir, I would like to say in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville that I am quite sure that he is aware of the practice in the United States of America of bringing a case for triple damages. If you bring a case for triple damages before the courts of America against a foreign company, you have the right to ask for a search for evidence. In the absence of the words “or litigant outside the Republic”, South African businesses in general would not have the defence which they would have with these words, because a private individual can ask for documents to be produced, and if you take out the words “or litigant outside the Republic”, then the two very things which I mentioned in my first speech tonight will come into play. I am sorry that the hon. member for Yeoville cannot see the point in using the words “or litigant outside the Republic”. Sir, the only further thing that I wish to add is that the only thing which the party to my right and we on these benches are trying to do is to define words which in the absence of any further definition would make the meaning of this clause much wider than we would find easy to accept and I think much wider than was intended by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a lawyer and I do not understand the niceties of the legal interpretation of words like “orders”, “directions” and “letters of instruction”, but I do understand something of the practical problems of firms and businesses that do business outside of South Africa, and I understand something of the problem of subsidiaries of foreign companies which do business in this country. I think the hon. member for Yeoville has dealt with the problems which may arise in the case of subsidiaries of overseas companies that do business here. I feel that in practice this piece of legislation is going to result in the Government having to rule by exemptions rather than by positive measures. I believe that they are spreading a very finely-meshed net to catch one or two fairly big fish, but that in the process they are going to catch enormous shoals of much smaller fish. I wonder whether the Government realizes what this measure is going to mean to branches of South African businesses that operate abroad. If you put the ordinary man’s interpretation on the words “order and direction”, then, as I see it, the branch of a South African business that is operating abroad may be ordered or directed to provide information for tax purposes in a foreign country, it may have to comply with orders or directions in regard to labour regulations, it may have to comply with orders and regulations in regard to the companies laws in other countries and if there are trade practices laws in other countries it may have to comply with orders and directions in regard to trade practises. If it is a bank it may have to comply with orders and directions in regard to banking laws in other countries. If it is an import/export business it may have to comply with orders and regulations in regard to exchange control, import control and export control in other countries. They may even have to comply with orders and directions in regard to security matters. To me it would seem that there is going to be an enormous volume of exemptions given just to allow the branches of South African companies operating overseas to carry on with their normal business. I should like to say that if this is going to happen in practice, and I am sure it is going to happen, it is essential that these exemptions be given expeditiously and that normal business be interfered with as little as possible.

Mr. Chairman, the intention of this provision is most definitely not to curb normal business activities. I think one should take another look at the provision so as to decide whether such business activities will be curbed in any way. I think the solution in this regard is contained in the argument advanced by the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member for Brakpan said the crux of this clause was the words “order, direction or letters of request”. The hon. member said the words “letters of request” had a special meaning, i.e. the meaning attached to it by a definition in the Supreme Court Act. This means, consequently, that we are dealing with a “letter of request” of a specific nature. Since we are dealing here with an expression of a specific nature and we also have words here which do not have a directly definable nature, the sui generis rule must be applied to the other words. The hon. member for Yeoville has said that the word interpretation which applies in one statute in respect of one word cannot be used for the same word in another statute. But this argument is most definitely not applicable in this case. In this case the interpretation laid down in the statute in respect of the words “letters of request” is not used to determine the meaning of the word “order” or “direction”. It is only used to determine the nature of it. Since we are dealing with an official order or with a direction or with letters of request emanating from some public body or other, there can be no question of the ordinary law interpretation practices being of vital importance.

Another argument which was advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville and to which I want to come back for a moment is his comments on the problem of the South African citizen visiting America and being subpoenaed there to give evidence. He says the South African citizen would be committing an offence in America if he refused to do so, an offence under American law. Surely that is the wrong argument. In the first place, this Bill cannot apply in respect of the actions of South African citizens in America or in any other country, for no statute of South Africa has any extraterritorial force. Therefore, if a person is instructed or subpoenaed in America to give evidence, he is obliged to give evidence there since he comes under the jurisdiction of those courts and that system of law. In such a case he would not be committing an offence in terms of South African Law. The argument advanced by the hon. member in this regard is therefore not one which has any legal force.

Mr.

Chairman, I had the opportunity of getting the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville timeously. I therefore had the opportunity of placing it before the legal advisers. I want to tell the hon. member that I have given it a fair amount of consideration because I think it is a very important amendment to consider. However, I and the legal advisers are of the opinion that the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville may possibly restrict this clause too much. What we are actually intending to arrive at is that we do not want people from outside South Africa to be able to issue an order, a direction, or letters of request issued or emanating from outside the Republic to people inside the Republic for information about companies.

Mr. Chairman, May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? When the hon. the Minister uses the words “we do not want people from outside South Africa”, what does he seek to include with that? Does he seek to include courts, governments or just people?

I was just about to explain it. Normally it would be from a court, but unfortunately we are not in the position that we are able to assess all the possibilities from where a legal order may emanate. It may not be from a court; it may be from something else.

From a statutory body?

It may be. It is our difficulty that we do not know of all the possibilities that could exist in a foreign country from where such an order may come. For that reason it has been put in the clause as it is written here in the broadest of terms, but there is a certain amount of restriction to it. In my respectful submission the restriction is as follows and I quote from the clause:

In other words the whole sense of that phrase is a sense of ordering something and not a sense of purely and simply requesting something. I think the hon. member will agree with me that in the case of a company, as it was suggested by the hon. member for Constantia, which had some link with another company …

Then it is an order.

It may be an order, but it is not an order in this sense because it is simply a request and it will be voluntarily granted. This measure is to protect people who do not want to give voluntary information. This clause seeks to protect people from an order or a direction in compliance with an order or a direction or letters of request. Of course, those three words are in this particular context looked at together. In the South African legal context “letters of request” has a certain meaning when it relates to something from a foreign country directed to your own country. It has the meaning given to it by section 33 of the Supreme Court Act as the hon. member will know. Our difficulty here is that we must be careful not to restrict the various possibilities that can strike our business community. It does not concern the giving of voluntary information, but it concerns the giving of information which they do not want to give. This is what we are trying to solve. There are conventions between our country and other countries where, once you have a section like this, it will probably be respected by the foreign courts. They will probably respect it and they will say that this country has a convention with them, that it has a section on its Statute Book and therefore they are not going to make an order requesting this sort of information. Our problem with the amendment of the hon. member for Johannesburg North is in my respectful view the fact that it tries to stipulate so many points that you automatically must get yourself into hot water with it. You are virtually opening up such a field of inquiry that you are going to find yourself in difficulties. On the other hand, I think the hon. member for Yeoville will grant me this, that he is restricting it to two things. He is restricting it simply to “emanating from a court of law or statutory authority”. They may, and I do not want to put it higher than that …

What can they do?

I do not know and that is my difficulty. There may be others from which such orders may emanate. I do not know all the legal systems, but I shall give the hon. member one example, viz. the law of agency in Germany which is not exactly the same as the law of agency under the Roman-Dutch law. There are all sorts of things in foreign countries and the hon. member may be better informed than I am. But we feel that the wording as it stands clearly does not strike at voluntary information given from company to company and all the other things the hon. member for Constantia held up as possibilities. This is the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that it is clearly my view that an order, a direction or a compliance—in other words, something official—ought not be traced to its source, because those possibilities must be left to the foreign countries and to the legal systems of the foreign countries. When I have said this the hon. member will agree with me that it is best to leave this provision fairly wide. The hon. member will agree that in this context letters of request have a definite legal connotation. I think the courts will find that it is a letter of request in terms of section 33 of the Supreme Court Act, because this is how you get the sort of information which we are trying to avoid here. That being so, I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member. I have been satisfied that this clause will avoid the difficulties we are trying to avoid.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the clause as it stands would prevent, for example the House of Commons Committee on Wages, from instructing parent companies in England obtaining information about subsidiary companies in South Africa?

I do not think so. I do not think that when a House of Commons Committee instructs a parent company in Britain to do something and that parent company has a company in South Africa, that simple knowledge that goes between company and company will have anything to do with this clause at all. It is simply knowledge that goes to the parent company in Britain and the parent company is, of course, obliged by law to comply with the House of Commons direction.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is going to be much point in continuing a legal argument across the floor because we are not only concerned now with the interpretation of South African law. The hon. member for Johannesburg North has also brought in the interpretation of American law. I am concerned with two specific points which the hon. the Minister has raised which I think are new. The first is that he says that there will be no objection to any voluntary information which is given of any kind. I think this is important and if it is so, it will have to be an exemption, because I do not believe that to be the position in terms of this clause. I think it is very important that these should be an undertaking that is given that where in fact a person voluntarily gives information it will not constitute grounds for a prosecution.

I think if we can have that on record it will help quite a bit. The second point is that I regret to say respectfully that I do not agree with the hon. the Minister as regards his interpretation of the answer he gave to the hon. member for Houghton, because as I read this clause if in fact a House of Commons Committee says to a holding company in the United Kingdom that it wants information, the man in control of that company orders an employee to give that information, that employee will be committing an offence and will have to get the Minister’s consent. It is the very point which the hon. Minister made that we differ on. If you limit this to a court of law and an authority created by statute, you have no problem, but the moment you allow that little loophole for yourself that you want of saying “well I do not know what other things there may be, so therefore it might be all sorts of other people that give orders”, then you in fact have left that law open. Then that information can in fact be requested and the Minister’s consent will have to be obtained before it is given. I regret to say that on the very point that we raise here of going beyond the two possibilities the courts or other bodies created by statute the hon. the Minister is creating a commercial and investment problem for South Africa which I am terribly afraid of.

On amendment moved by Mr. G. H. Waddell,

Question put: That “direction or letters of request issued” stand part of the clause.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped (Progressive Party dissenting).

On amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz,

Question put: That the word stand part of the Clause,

Question affirmed and the amendment dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, I am just rising to express my thanks for the concession the hon. the Minister has made at the request of the KWV. I want to express my thanks for the introduction of this new designation, “wine house licences”. Provision is already made in the Act for various on-consumption licences and now one is being added which we call a wine house licence. The wine farmer is very proud of his product. He would very much like his product to be used in a civilized manner. The wine farmer is opposed to the abuse of his product. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister mentioned the Paddagang in Tulbagh, where the first wine house licence will be introduced. With the introduction of this wine house licence, a very old Cape tradition is being recreated in a new form. We are making the establishment of pleasant meeting places where people can enjoy wine with their meals in a restful atmosphere possible. The idea behind wine house licences is that wine will be consumed with food. We all know that alcohol is harmful to the body if it is used incorrectly. However, there is no doubt that wine is pre-eminently the drink suitable for consumption with food. Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I am laughing now because the hon. the Minister of Defence sent me a note which I find a little amusing. Certain basic and established customs are associated with the correct use of wine at the table. The correct type of glasses have to be used for the wine. There is a correct way to pour and to drink that wine. There is also the correct type of wine to drink with various dishes. These customs have been followed over the course of many centuries in Western civilization, and in this way norms have been laid down for the correct use of wine.

Secondly, and in conclusion, I just want to say that the wine house licence creates an opportunity for introducing our wines of origin.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Worcester a fair chance to complete his speech.

I know that hon. members are very interested in this product. If they would keep quiet for a few moments, I shall tell them more. I want to say that wine is the product of the soil, the climate, and the skill of human hands. For that reason we are grateful that we are going to have this opportunity as well to learn to know our wines or origin better. By means of wine houses we will be able to bring together the best from our kitchens and our cellars, and we shall be creating for our people the opportunity of maintaining this civilized drinking pattern in future.

To me it is very important that the wine house licences should also be subject to fixed hours, and that wine houses should only be open at certain hours on Sundays and holidays, viz. at meal times, so that the wine may be consumed with the food. On behalf of the producer of our product, I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for granting these wine house licences.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 34:

Mr. Chairman, this clause, an amendment to the Defence Act, has as its aim the exclusion of certain properties from rates and taxes namely properties of the Department of Defence. This provision has been introduced because of a successful declaration action against the department in regard to the payment of rates. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this provision again. The present position in regard to properties owned by churches, the Boy Scouts Association, the Voortrekkers Organization and a multitude of sporting bodies is that they are exempt from rates, provided the properties are not let, in other words, not used as a source of income. The reason for that provision is this: If a property is let, there are two people who are concerned. One is the owner and the other one is the tenant. If it is let for business purposes, there is no reason why the owner cannot recoup the rates from the lessee by charging an additional rental. In regard to the property over which there was litigation, part of the property is used by members of the Defence Force, but another part is let to a purely commercial undertaking. I believe it is wrong to allow that property to be exempt from rates when a similar benefit does not apply as far as church properties are concerned. When once a church hall, for instance, becomes a lettable proposition it becomes subject to rates.

There is another aspect which is objectionable in this clause, i.e. the fact that the provision is made retrospective. In other words, it reaches back as far as November 1958. I believe that that would result in an injustice as far as the local authority is concerned. That authority believed that it was entitled to rates over this period and had indeed collected those rates. It would be unjust to ask that authority to refund those rates which it has collected over a period of 16 years. I want to say that we are opposed to this clause as it stands. As far as the retrospective effect of the clause is concerned, I want to move as an amendment—

The object of this amendment is to delete the retrospective provisions in this clause. I would ask the hon. the Minister of Defence whether he will not look at this matter again, particularly in regard to the letting of premises for the running of a business from which the rates can be recouped by way of an increased rental from the tenant who has hired the property for business purposes.

I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 40:

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I wish to move—

I think this clause should be seen against the background of the situation which has developed in relation to the Coloured Representative Council and the provisions of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, Act No. 49 of 1964. This clause makes provision for two ways of adjourning the council, one for proroguing the council, which can be done by the Minister in terms of section 15(2)(a) and the other one, the dissolution of the council, which can be done by the State President by way of a proclamation. In terms of a prorogation of the council, membership and office-bearers continue to exist. The council merely ceases to be in session. However, there is a proviso that it may not be prorogued for more than a year. If it is prorogued, it has to meet at least once a year. Therefore the Minister is limited and he cannot prorogue it indefinitely. This is essentially what happened earlier this year when the Minister of Coloured Relations and Rehoboth Affairs acting he says, on the advice of the executive chairman of the council decided to prorogue that council’s session to begin on the 8th of next month. While the Minister was undoubtedly acting in terms of the powers conferred on him under the Act, we in these benches believe that he was quite wrong in doing so in terms of the conventions of this Parliament and, indeed, in terms of the basic tenets of any form of parliamentary or elected representation. One must, I think, relate this to procedure being observed in this House. This House is prorogued by the State President and is deemed to be acting on the advice of his Ministers and, indeed, the Ministers are responsible to this House. So a prorogation of this House is really a decision of the members of this House acting through the Cabinet and subsequently through the State President. As far as the CRC is concerned, this was not done on the advice of the members of that council. It was done on the advice of an individual, who happens to be a nominated member of that council and, moreover, nominated by the White Parliament, or rather Executive, to be the chairman of the executive committee. In this situation we believe that while the hon. the Minister is acting within the framework of the Act, we do not believe that he is acting correctly in relation to a constitutional situation which says that in addition to the Parliament of South Africa there shall be a number of separate councils through which the various population groups can deal with matters concerning their special interests. So much for proroguing the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council.

One comes now to the question of the dissolution of the council. In terms of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act, the council can only be dissolved under one set of circumstances and that is by the effluxion of time. It can only be dissolved after a five-year period. These provisions seek to give the State President, in other words, an executive of this Parliament, the right to dissolve it at any time the executive sees fit. Once again we think that this is a negation of a very important principle and that is that it should be the Parliament itself or the executive which is responsible to that Parliament that should make the decision. It should not be done by an executive standing outside of that Parliament, especially in the situation where the Coloured people no longer have representation in this House. We believe it should be the council itself which should decide whether it should be dissolved or not. It should not be this Parliament or the White executive or the State President acting on the advice of his Ministers who should decide this. It should be the prerogative of the Coloured people themselves. We believe this is very important both in order to give the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council the status it deserves and in order to see that it is an extension of the whole procedure of Parliament. The council itself should decide at what stage it should be dissolved if it is not to run for its full five-year term. It is for this reason that I move the amendment.

The second point I should like to make is that there is no provision in the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council Act for the period of time that must elapse between the time that the council has been dissolved by the State President and the time it should be reconstituted. There is no provision to say that it must be reconstituted within three months or immediately. It is silent on this matter. There is no specific provision in the Act laying down the time for its reconstitution. I know that there is no specific provision in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act for the reconstitution of this Parliament, but there is a very specific provision which lays down that the conventions which operated prior to the passing of the Constitution Act shall continue to operate in respect of this Parliament. In other words, where conventions have existed in relation to this Parliament which specifically state that they will continue after the proclamation of the Republic of South Africa, the State President does act in terms of those conventions. In relation to the Coloured Persons, Representative Council, however, there is no provision of this nature. Indeed, if this clause is accepted, the Government will be in a position to dissolve the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council against the wishes of the majority of its members. It could do so when it deemed fit and there is no provision for the reconstitution of the council. There is no provision whatsoever whereby it is laid down that within a certain period of time that council should be reconstituted. We think that this is a serious omission and we should like the hon. the Minister to consider this point. We have a situation here where the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council which is deemed to be a body representative of the Coloured people is not itself allowed to decide when to call a general election or when it should be dissolved, and secondly, should the White Parliament decide to dissolve that council, there is no onus on the Government to reconstitute it. It is for this reason that we believe that the trigger in the decision to dissolve the Coloured council, should be the Coloured people themselves. This has a special significance until 1979 because until that date one-third of the members of that council will be nominated by the Government. This does mean that the Government can use the threat to dissolve the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council as a means of disciplining or trying to bring the nominated members into line. The Government could use the dissolution of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council as a device to appoint other nominated members in the place of any nominated member who might have crossed the floor. Indeed, this is exactly what has happened. The Government is clearly embarrassed by the fact that certain of the members whom it nominated have now decided to join the Opposition.

We think it is quite fundamental that if the Coloured people are to respect or look up to the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council as their Parliament in the absence of the right to be in this Parliament, it should be the Coloured people themselves and not the Cabinet of this Parliament which should decide when it should be dissolved. Once it has been dissolved, there should be an onus on the Government to reconstitute it and there should be some specific provision in the Act to make sure that this action was taken.

Mr. Chairman, the position as outlined by the hon. member for Sea Point would be exactly the same after the expiry of a period of five years, would it not?

But not the first five years.

They need not reconstitute the council afterwards; consequently, in my humble opinion, it has nothing to do with the amendment of this Bill. We are only deciding here whether that council may be dissolved by proclamation by the State President. I regret that I am unable to accept the proposal that the State President should first go to the council before reaching a decision. The State President does not act in that way; he cannot listen to too many councils at the same time. He should listen only to this Cabinet. Unfortunately, therefore, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister could not motivate his argument a bit further. After all, it is the Cabinet responsible to this Parliament which decides when this Parliament should be dissolved. Surely then, if there is to be a Coloured Council of any stature, it should be the executive of that body which, working through the executive council advising the State President, should act if it becomes necessary to dissolve the council. To say to the Coloured people that it is this Parliament, the executive council of this Parliament that is going to decide, seems to negate the claim made by the Government that the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council is a body of some stature, a body of some importance, and yet it is not the Coloured Council or its executive that can decide when the council should be dissolved. Sir, the other point I concede. I said that I thought there was a void in the Act in general. It may be said perhaps that in terms of precedence and convention the council would be reconstituted after the effluxion of its period of office, but the Minister must admit that he is taking special powers to dissolve the Coloured Council ahead of its time. In other words, he could dissolve it after two years if perhaps he found an embarrassing majority in the Coloured Council as far as the Government of South Africa was concerned. There is nothing to compel the State President to proclaim that that council must be reconstituted. Sir, the Government is in difficulty with the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council at the present time, and you could well have the situation that the Government, acting contrary to the advice of the Coloured Council, might dissolve the Coloured Council and then not take steps to reconstitute it. We think that this is a flagrant violation of the whole concept of representation, even within the framework of the Government’s policy of separate representation.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—38: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W, M.; Suzman, H.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.: Von Keyserlingk, C. C; Waddell, G. H.; Wiley, J. W. E.

Tellers: A. L. Boraine and R. J. Lorimer.

Noes—71: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.: Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotze, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Kruger, J. T.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Lloyd, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, L. A.; Potgieter, S. P.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C. (Winburg); Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, A van Breda, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 47:

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Indian Council asked that the chairman of the council should be elected and that he should not be a member of the executive committee.

The position here is that the chairman of the Indian Council is in the same position as the Speaker of this House. He ought not to be a member of the executive committee. The reason for that he would then sometimes have to give a ruling on his own actions. For instance, there might be an argument about something which the executive committee is alleged to have done. He would then be occupying the chair while members of the council were arguing about what had been done by the executive committee, of which he is a member. Accordingly he would be the judge in his own case. That is the only reason for this amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 50:

Mr. Chairman, the hour is late and I am going to be very quick and I hope very clear. I hope that the hon. the Minister on his part is going to make a crisp decision as well. I should like to know from him whether he is going to take the same decision that he has taken in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point.

Of course!

It appears as if he is not going to make the same decision, but nevertheless I want to move the following amendment—

I have sent to the hon. the Minister a copy of the amendment which I believe he has received and I have also sent a copy of the amendment to the hon. the Minister of Transport whom I see is not here. He would normally deal with these matters as they fall within his portfolio. In general we agree with the clause, because we believe that the proposed amendment to the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act is more realistic and equitable than the method which is presently adopted, i.e. that the Minister himself considers application for extension of the prescription period. We feel that the Minister of Transport has a difficult task in making decisions on the merits of each application, but we are concerned, in terms of this new amendment, that people who wish to obtain relief will be subject to the costs involved in court proceedings. Nevertheless, we believe that the other attributes of this amendment outweigh the possible difficulties that would face a litigant himself. The Minister of Transport has made it clear that he received numerous applications indicating that there is a general need for the extension of prescription, because he said in a speech in the Other Place (Senate Hansard, col. 1214 of 13 September 1974):

When the original Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act was introduced the matter of the prescription of claims was paramount to enable contributions to be fined on an actuarial basis. I believe that this factor could still well apply today. I believe too that the true purposes of the Act in compensating innocent parties can well be lost in certain deserving cases due to the prescription clause, and that by extending the period of prescription on good cause shown—and these are the operative words—actuarial computation will not be radically upset, but justice will be done. The amendment lays down these good causes in the proposed new section 24(2)(a) and creates provisos in subsection (2)(b), i.e. that the application shall not be granted unless made within 90 days of prescription applying, and provided that the applicant has given security for the costs of any opposition to the application by the authorized insurer. With the second part of this proviso we can find no fault, although the hon. the Minister of Transport was wrong when he said the following in the same speech I quoted in the Other Place.

This is not actually the position, because in point of fact what transpired was that they were worried about the costs to the MVA fund. On this matter there will be heavy onus to discharge upon the applicant. We believe that the effect of this new clause will be to double the alacrity of the negligent defaulter. We do believe, however, that the time limit of 90 days is legislating on Eric, or little by little. In any event, the Minister of Transport had no time limit in regard to making his decision. With all the conditions in the proviso we do not believe that there will be any difficulty on the part of a court to decide between genuine cases requiring condonation and those clearly in default through negligence. If this is so, we believe that by extending the period contained in the new section 24(b)(i) from 90 days to 12 months, the position of a genuine claimant, reasonably unable to comply with the ordinary provision of the Act, will be covered, and in all equity we ask the hon. the Minister to comply with our request. I believe it has been the experience of the Minister of Transport that genuine cases do arise frequently. We want to know whether he has tested the position at all. There appears to be no good reason why the limitation of 90 days should be placed in this particular amendment and we therefore ask that it be replaced by the words “12 months”.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to comment on the merits of the hon. member’s proposed amendment but what I do in fact want to tell him is that we have made excellent progress here. We are now laying down that a case may be taken to court whereas it has, up to now, been entrusted to the discretion of the Minister. This is in line with arguments advanced by that side of the House in debates in previous years and we think this indicates progress. In connection with the period in which such application may be made, the question arises whether it should be done within 90 days, as the clause determines, or six months. In my opinion it is an absolutely arbitrary decision. The fact remains that a concession is being made so that a case may be brought to court, something which has not been possible before. Furthermore, there is a considerable extension in the sense that before the parties go to court the authorized insurer, if he believes that the provisions of section 24(2Xa)(i) and (ii) have been complied with—so it seems to me—may grant condonation at his discretion by way of negotiations. This is a further extension of the existing situation and consequently it is also a concession. I want to leave the rest of the amendment to the hon. the Minister. However, I want to say that we have made progress and that we should not carry the point too far. We have now created a situation where the court has to decide on costs. The court has to make a decision on the matter before it. In the case of parallel applications the court normally has to consider the merits of the case itself, i.e. the possible prospects of success. The court also has to consider whether the person has a reasonable explanation as to why he did not institute his action in good time. On the basis of that a decision is given and costs are normally granted. However, here we have a situation where the merits of the case are not relevant at all. All the court now has to consider are the facts surrounding the party’s failure to institute the action in good time, and nothing more; in other words, the court merely has to adjudicate on the case as it has been made out in the documents. The court does not decide on the merits of the case at all. Therefore the court is going to be limited here in the exercise of its discretion as far as costs are concerned. The indications are—and this is how we understand it—that in subsection (2)(c) the words “without having regard to the outcome of any action for the recovery of the compensation in question” are limiting the discretion. We on this side of the House feel that we should leave to the court itself the discretion of making a suitable court order. For example, the court must be in a position to award costs against the applicant or against the respondent, on the basis of the documents before it. If there are suitable cases, the court must also consider allowing costs to be costs in the action. There are many arguments to substantiate this. Admittedly, provision is being made here for security which has to be given by the applicant, but the costs might be far in excess of that amount. The court may perhaps feel that in a suitable case it wishes to make costs in the action. For that reason we believe that if we were to omit paragraph (c) we would be retaining the inherent jurisdiction of the court to give a suitable decision on costs, and if we were to omit paragraph (c), we would not be restricting the discretion of our courts in this regard. For that reason I move as an amendment—

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words about these two amendments. The first amendment is that of the hon. member for East London City, in which I am being requested to extend the period from 90 days to a full year. I want to tell the hon. member that I gave it very serious consideration. Because I am not an insurer my sympathy of course lies with those persons who take out summons against an insurer. However, for the sake of fairness, I approached the department on this matter. However, they have a problem in this regard and this I can quite understand. In the first place litigation must be carried through to an end. This is a general principle which we cannot contest. At some or other time a legal action must come to an end. The only question is when. When one considers that it takes two years before a person is prohibited from submitting his claim and we now add another year, it could mean that a person could wait three years before he submits his claim. Hon. members themselves will understand how extremely difficult it would then be for the insurer to be able to determine precisely what had happened in order to prepare his side of the case. I am inclined to agree that two years is a long time, although those hon. members who are lawyers know that two years pass very quickly in the case of claims such as this one. The fact of the matter, however, is that it really is a long period and that many facts can go astray. Many witnesses can disappear. This makes it almost impossible for the insurer to build his case. The proposed subsection (2)(a)(iii) makes it clear that the insurer, in any event, can at any time waive his right to invoke prescription. The insurer himself has the authority to say, “You may go ahead and bring the action against me”. So at this stage already there is an opening for such a person. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the period of 90 days is not unfair in these circumstances. It is only in cases where the insurer feels that the person was totally negligent with his claim that he will oppose the application for condonation.

I come now to the aspect raised by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, i.e. what the present position of the courts is in respect of costs. If hon. members have a look at the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, i.e. the omission of the proposed paragraph (c), they will find that, if the paragraph remains, it would mean that the courts would have to issue a order of costs there and then. The courts would not have the authority to determine costs in the action. This, I feel, is unfair. That is why I am prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, by means of which, as far as costs are concerned, discretion is being granted to the courts. The hon. member for East London City must pardon me but I cannot accept his amendment. I think I am already helping him by accepting the amendment in respect of the costs.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not think this is a bit hard on a third party who is suing under legal aid to have to give security to the satisfaction of the court for costs before he can go ahead? I am referring to the proposed subsection (2)(b)(ii).

Mr. Chairman, the legal aid will be quite capable of giving security. If he is under legal aid, of course, he is not paying for it himself. I can assure the hon. member that the legal aid will be financially strong enough to be able to give security. The whole idea with regard to security is that, if a person submits an application for condonation, obviously he must pay for it because he is coming after two years have elapsed. He at least has to give security, so that, if his application is frivolous, he can pay the costs.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. G. H. Bell negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. H. J. Coetsee agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer very briefly to the clause where we deal with the repal of laws, and not with any other specific clause. This clause deals with the Master and Servants Act of 1856, but I want to refer to the Bantu Labour Act of 1964 and the repeal of section 15. I want to underline the importance of repealing this particular section in our own industry, particularly in the mining industry today. The oldest major industry in South Africa is the mining industry, one which is highly labour intensive, and in many ways this industry has set the pattern for recruitment, for conditions, for wages, etc. It has also set the pattern for certain legislation which belongs to a bygone era and which needs to be repealed. The mining industry is unpopular, obviously because of dangers, of working conditions, etc. As secondary industry has developed in South Africa, the mining industry has come to depend more and more on foreign labour, so that today nearly 80% of the Black labour force comes from beyond our borders. It follows that any political developments in countries such as Lesotho, Malawi and Mozambique have a definite and direct bearing on our mining industry. These developments are becoming more and more serious. For example, in terms of a very large section of our Black labour force which comes from Malawi, we know that the recruitment has already been stopped from Malawi, and the conditions do not seem to be improving at all despite all kinds of consultations which continue to take place. In recent days the situation in Lesotho appears to be deteriorating as well in relation to the vast number of Black workers who come from that country to work in the mining industry in South Africa, so much so that there is already talk of a need for a labour agreement. The present conditions under which Black workers are employed in the mining industry have also been described in an emotive way as slave labour conditions. In that expression or description there was very specific reference to those Acts which make it possible for contract workers to be found guilty by the court of breach of contract and fined or imprisoned. The repeal of that kind of law is long overdue and is most welcomed by this party.

We all know the developments on the political fronts in Mozambique. Nearly 25% of our Black labour force comes from that country and we are already experiencing problems in this regard. Even further afield, the stevedores in the United States of America decided to boycott the offloading of goods from South Africa because of this very Act on our Statute Book. When those stevedores decided through their union to resort to this kind of action and to utter this kind of threat, they were not concerned about the goodwill of any Minister or indeed of any mining house even though these laws have not really been enacted for a very long time. The repeal of the offending law, therefore, is the only correct method of convincing people in this land, in our neighbouring countries and further afield, in fact, in the world, that there is simply no place for antiquated laws which belong to another time. For these reasons, we all welcome the repeal of this law.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Business suspended at 11.35 p.m. and resumed at 12.30 a.m. on Friday, 1 November.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.