In connection with Clause 1 a point was raised yesterday during the second reading by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in connection with Bantu who come into the Republic. Special mention was made of some 30,000 Shangaans who had come in. It was stated that they had applied to the nearest Native Affairs Commissioners and got permits at a cost of 5s. each. They were then legally in the Republic. I should like to pursue this matter a little further. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether that provision is directly or by implication being repealed in this Bill. You see, Sir, this clause deals with a person who is a prohibited person in terms of the law. I was a little surprised yesterday to hear of complaints about people who, because they have a permit to be in the Republic, were obviously not prohibited immigrants. Without going into the reasons concerning those people who are employed when they come in, such as the 30,000 Shangaans who were referred to, I wish to say that those people have a very high degree of natural resistance to malaria and they work in a very highly malarial area from time to time. They have an immunity which the local Bantu have not got. So there is a very special reason, apart from their aptitude, why they should be here. The point I want to make is whether in future, in view of this provision in this clause, there is going to be an abrogation of that portion of the law which permits them to go to the nearest Bantu Commissioners’ Office and get a 5s. permit or whether they will be allowed to continue to do so?

It has been customary so far to issue permits for six months to such foreign Bantu who do come here and those permits can be renewed. This clause does not change that, it is really creating entirely new machinery with a view to the entry of Bantu in future. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) raised an objection yesterday and said that the Bill was of retrospective effect. Nowhere in the Bill do I find anything which makes it of retrospective effect. In other words, this provision does not apply to those Bantu who have already entered the country. It is only creating machinery so that we can control the foreigners who will enter in future. For the rest suffice it to say in reply to that question that it was indeed customary in the past for the Bantu Commissioner to issue temporary permits and that those permits were renewed every six months.

It would be possible then for that particular procedure still to be followed, if I understand the hon. Minister correctly. It can be followed and only in the event of one of these immigrants coming in and not availing himself of the right to apply for and get a permit for six months for temporary residence, if he is apprehended without a permit, without travel documents, will he be expelled in terms of this sub-section?

I want to ask the hon. Minister what the position is going to be with regard to persons holding temporary permits at the time when such temporary permit lapses. Will they from the time of the passing of this Act then have to go back to the areas to secure the necessary travel documents which now apparently are now going to be made mandatory, or will it be possible simply to issue to these Africans further temporary permits? The whole question is extremely confusing, and I think the hon. Minister confused us a little more when he spoke in the Other Place when the Bill was originally introduced. He gave the impression, at the Committee Stage and through his concluding remarks at the second-reading debate in the Other Place, that as from the time of this piece of legislation becoming law, the High Commission Territory Africans would be regarded as aliens. Those were his own words. Anybody who was not a South African born subject or British subject under the 1962 Act became an alien in terms of that Act if he did not take out South African citizenship within a certain period. But the hon. the Minister gave us the impression during that debate that the minute this Bill becomes an Act, all the Basutoland and Swaziland and Bechuanaland Africans would become aliens in terms of the Act. Will they now also have to carry the necessary travel documents in order to get their permits? I want to take this a little bit further under Clause 2 because it is relevant to both clauses. I may say that the official Opposition in the Senate made it quite clear at the Committee Stage that if the hon. Deputy Minister had said what he said at the conclusion of the second-reading debate when he introduced the Bill at the second reading, they would not have allowed such an easy passage of this Bill through the Senate. They probably would have opposed Clause 1 in view of the remarks made by the hon. Minister then when he stated that the High Commission Territory Africans would be considered aliens after this Bill became law.

In reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), I would like to state that the position is exactly as he described it, that those Natives from the outside areas will still have to follow that procedure, that is to say those who are here, by getting those permits renewed after six months. This Bill does not repeal that arrangement. So that will continue as in the past. In answer to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) about the Protectorate Natives, I can only say that technically the Protectorate Natives are aliens since 31 May last year, and as I have stated in the Other Place, and repeated here yesterday, the whole question of the arrangement in regard to the Protectorate Natives is subject to negotiation at the moment, negotiation between us and the British Government, and I do not think it is opportune to give any particulars at this stage. Technically they are aliens, and the way they will be dealt with administratively will form part of the statement to be issued probably in a month’s time.

Then I must maintain my objection, because the hon. Minister in 1962, on the question of citizenship and the whole matter of negotiation with the Protectorates, gave an undertaking that full particulars would be given to the House by the Minister concerned, and I do not think that the hon. the Deputy Minister should come along with legislation before he is in a position to give this House full particulars. I am well aware of the fact that technically the Africans from the Commission Territories became aliens just as did other British subjects or British protected persons in 1962, but the hon. Minister made it quite clear when he spoke on this matter in the Other Place that as from now those Africans would be treated as aliens. Up to now they were exempted. I think this House is entitled to know what the position exactly is and to get some information in regard to the negotiations before passing this Bill. For that reason I want to repeat that I think it is an untimely measure and I will have to oppose this clause.

I just want to say a few words in connection with what the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) has said. Let me state the position very clearly: The Natives from the Protectorates have always been regarded as foreigners in South Africa, not only since last year, but legally they have always been foreigners in South Africa; administratively, however, since 1910 they have been treated as though they were our own Bantu and that is still being done to-day with a view to the negotiations which are afoot at the moment. This Bill does not change the position as far as those people are treated administratively. The objection raised by the hon. member is, therefore, no objection at all because in the past they were treated in a special manner administratively. They will continue to be treated in a special manner and the fact that from her point of view they have been foreigners and aliens since last year will make no difference whatsoever to the way they have been treated administratively until such time as the negotiations have been concluded. They will then be administered in terms of the arrangements which are made. That is the position in a nutshell and this Bill does not change the manner in which they have been treated administratively.

In view of what the hon. member for Hougton (Mrs. Suzman) has said, I want to make the attitude of the official Opposition abundantly clear. Clause 1 deals with a prohibited person in terms of the law, and we of the official Opposition say that a prohibited person has no right to be in the Republic unless he becomes clothed with official documents. As prohibited persons they are exempted in terms of the special provisions of the documents they may hold, and if prohibited people come in here and they have not got such a document, they remain prohibited persons, and they are apprehended and transferred back to their country of origin or elsewhere under the conditions set out, and we say that that must take place in terms of the law. You cannot accept the principle that prohibited persons are allowed free in the Union without any necessary document, without any right of being here in the Republic, and be allowed to carry on their ordinary occupation, because then what is the use of having any documents at all to identify our own citizens or to fix their status in our own country? I must therefore say that we are going to support the principle of this particular clause, and I would like to thank the hon. the Minister for the assurance he has given in regard to the people who are already here and who are enjoying the six months’ renewable permit.

When the second-reading debate was on yesterday, the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) (Mr. Lewis) asked if the Deputy Minister would indicate, that is if he would confirm or deny what he believed to be the position where it says in the first line “an alien who is not deemed to be in possession of a permit”. The hon. member put it that for the purpose of this clause an alien could be a White or a non-White, that race was not a consideration for the purpose of dealing with that description of a person who comes under the mischief of that clause—in other words, an alien was an alien irrespective of race, class or colour and that therefore this clause applies to people of all races and all colours who may come under the restriction provided in this clause, but who can equally enjoy the provision provided in this clause which is to their advantage, because we on this side of the House look upon the provisions of Clause 2 as being advantageous provisions, notably for people from the Commonwealth and elsewhere who are here in South Africa and who have not elected in terms of the law to apply for a permit to stay here for permanent residence or temporary residence. They have just sat still and done nothing. The question I want to put to the Deputy Minister is this: That is a group, and in the main it is a White group, but the term “alien” can it rightly be construed as meaning a person, irrespective of race or colour at all, merely a person who is here without the necessary documents and who will in terms of this clause be entitled to make application for those documents under the conditions set out here in sub-section (2)?

The question of race is not a factor in this case. As we are now explaining and interpreting the Aliens Act all person who are not South African citizens are aliens, whether they are Black or White or whatsoever colour, in other words, the Bantu from other parts of Africa are also aliens.

I would like to have more details. I realize that any person who became an alien under the 1962 Act could obtain a permit. So he now gets as legislative right that which he had formerly enjoyed administratively anyway. That has always been the practice. People who were here without the necessary permit could in effect apply for such a permit. We have now simply translated into legislative terms what has been the administrative practice so far. Nobody has been deported who did not have the necessary permit. It has been the practice to allow an immigration officer to inform such people that they must apply for a permit. I have no objection to that. It interests me to see the official Opposition taking up the cudgels for people like this now when they voted with the Government last year in regard to the South Africa Act on the clause which enabled the Minister to take vast powers of depriving a person of South African citizenship. Now of course the Opposition is very elated by the fact that a small concession is being granted, translating into legislative practice what in fact was the administrative practice for all these years. But now on this easy reply of the hon. Minister that an “alien is an alien irrespective of colour”, I want to ask how does the hon. Deputy Minister reconcile that statement with the affirmed, pronounced policy of this Government that it intends to repatriate all foreign Africans irrespective of the fact that many of them have been here for 20 years and more? I am not saying that a country is not entitled to decide its over-all total citizenship, but the point that I am making is that it is the pronounced policy—I am sure the Froneman Commission’s Report is going to be translated into law—to get rid of foreign Africans—not illegal ones, but Africans who have been working here; they were allowed here under temporary permit, renewable every six months, provided the country’s economic needs made their presence here desirable. But these provisions in respect of Africans who have been living in South Africa, who have paid taxes here, have married in this country and produced families here, are very important. How many of such people are going to be or have already been given the right to become permanent South African citizens? How many British subjects with black skins have in fact since 1962 been allowed to avail themselves of this particular provision? I do not think the hon. Minister can stand up there and glibly tell us that an alien is an alien irrespective of colour as far as his Department is concerned, when we know perfectly well that as far as the Department of Bantu Administration is concerned—and this is the Department that in fact deals with foreign Africans—it has no intention whatsoever to allow such Africans to take up permanent residence in South Africa. I would like a little more detail and practical explanation in regard to the two conflicting policies of the two Government Departments—Bantu Administration on the one hand as typified by the hon. member for Heilbron and the Department of the Interior which informs us that an alien is an alien irrespective of colour, enjoying the same rights.

I am afraid the hon. member for Houghton is a very difficult person to satisfy. As far as aliens are concerned, I stated clearly that a person who was not a South African citizen was an alien. Surely that is crystal clear. According to this measure, according to the portion in which the hon. member is so interested, we are treating aliens differently as far as the Bantu are concerned. We have stated the position in our replies namely that the foreign Bantu from the Protectorates who have long since been regarded as foreigners but who have been treated differently administratively, are at the moment the subject of negotiations with the British Government and that is why I cannot make a statement in spite of the fact that the hon. member is so insistent that I should. The second group consists of those foreign Bantu from other African states who work here, inter alia, those from Mozambique. In reply to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) I said that the arrangement which existed in the past would continue to apply to them. They are granted temporary permits which can be renewed every six months. That arrangement remains in force. The third group which is affected by this Bill consists of those foreign Natives from African states who come here without any travel document. We are creating this machinery in order to stop the inflow of illegal immigrants. These are the three categories with which we are concerned here. I hope this is clear.

I am sorry but I am not yet satisfied. Will the hon. the Minister answer one straightforward question: I assume that a White person born in Swaziland who comes to live in South Africa in terms of the 1962 Act, or a White person born in Rhodesia who comes to live in South Africa for a long period, both British subjects who have come to live in South Africa, have the right to apply for South African citizenship and that it will automatically be granted to them before a certain date. Is that correct?

Yes.

In that case what is the position of a Black person born in Swaziland or in Rhodesia?

What has that got to do with the clause?

Everything, and I think even the hon. member will admit that. Can the hon. the Minister tell us whether such a Black person will have the same right after he has lived in the Union for many years; will he also be entitled to South African citizenship?

Irrespective of their colour people have had the right in the past to apply for citizenship.

May I ask how many Black people have been granted South African citizenship?

I move—

This Bill is self-explanatory. From the nature of the activities of the Land Bank it is often necessary for the managing director and other members of the board, as well as for the General Manager and the staff, particularly those officials attached to the inspection service of the Land Bank, to undertake journeys and the possibility does exist that if such persons should suffer any employment disability while they are in the service of the bank claims may be made against the bank. Other similar organizations have long since been adopting the policy of insuring their officials and members of their boards against such dangers. We find, for example, that the Industrial Development Corporation has done so as well as the Wool Board and the South African Tourist Corporation. All those bodies make special provision in this regard. It has therefore been decided to amend the Land Bank Act in such a way that bank funds may be utilized in order to obtain some form of protection for its staff or board members while they are acting in the service of the bank. The premium is very low. For example, it only amounts to R9 per annum in the case of a member of the board. As far as the staff of the Land Bank is concerned, those who earn over R3,120 per annum are to some extent protected under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act and as far as they are concerned the cover which they already enjoy will only be supplemented to bring it into line with those other members of the staff who receive a higher salary. I think this is a very essential measure. Not many years ago there was such a road accident and in order to prevent any action being instituted against the Land Bank in future this Bill is being introduced.

We on this side of the House support this measure wholeheartedly. We think it is only right that those people should be afforded the necessary protection and we are in full agreement with this Bill.

Will the hon. the Minister just tell us whether we are not creating a precedent here for institutions of a similar nature or are there already such cases?

I have already said that similar bodies, such as the Wool Board, the Tourist Corporation and the Industrial Development Corporation and a few others, for example, have made similar provision. These institutions to which I have referred are all semi-State institutions. As far as private institutions are concerned, it is the custom generally to ensure that there is such cover. It protects the institutions against any claim which can be instituted if a person who is a member of the staff is injured in the course of performing his duties.

I move—

This Bill contains a number of important provisions which are very important and of great value to both settlers as well as for the elimination of uneconomic holdings, except settlers who have acquired land under the Land Settlement Act. One of the difficulties which we have experienced in the past few years in various parts of South Africa has been that too many farms are uneconomic units and that the farmers have too little land to make a proper living. The result was that those people got into debt because they could not make a living on the land. Those debts are capitalized but the debt remains the liability of that person and his chances of getting out of his difficulties are very slender. It is felt that something ought to be done in order to place those people who do not have enough land on economic holdings where they can make a proper living without placing a liability on their shoulders which they cannot carry.

In order to determine whether a holding is economic or uneconomic is a difficult task in many respects. The duality of the soil is not uniform throughout South Africa so that you cannot say that in one district so many morgen constitute a holding on which a person can make a living and so many morgen in another district. It varies according to the soil, according to the climate and it depends on other circumstances to an almost unbelievable extent. To give a few examples: There was an old Coloured woman in Constantia who hired a piece of land from an aunt of mine on which she cultivated flowers. She had one morgen of land or almost a morgen. There was a house on that land and she paid the princely rent of £18 per annum. My aunt then decided that she was paying too little rent and she sent for the old woman and told her that she must pay £24 per annum. The Coloured woman then burst into a flood of tears that splattered on to the ground and the result was that my aunt’s heart softened and instead of increasing her rent by £6 per annum she reduced it by £6. Two years afterwards old Mrs. de Fleur died and she left her boy friend a Cadillac and £5,000 in cash which she had made out of less than a morgen of land. Some time ago I was along the Olifants River and a farmer came there to buy a new lorry. When they asked him what terms he wanted he said: “No, I want to pay cash.” That man had 11 morgen of land and he made such a good living on those 11 morgen that he was able to pay cash for the lorry. He has a neighbour, however, whose land is not more than 50 yards away from his and where you will not be able to make a living on 2,000 morgen. Where in the one case the economic value of land is £500 to £600 per morgen it is not 10s. or 5s. per morgen 50 yards away. In many cases our Provincial Councils have imposed limitations on the size of farms. In some cases it is 50 morgen and in other cases 25 morgen, but that really means very little because it all depends on the soil and the productivity of the holding. It is difficult, therefore, to determine what an economic holding is in terms of size. Many circumstances have to be taken into account and each one has to be valued separately. We now have these farms which are too small on our hands and the intention is to try to assist those people and to give them more land. The officials of my Department and those of the Department of Agriculture will have to inspect each one of those farms and if they find that any one of those farms is too small we shall assist that farmer to purchase more land in terms of Section 20. I may say, for the edification of the uninformed, that Section 20 is the one-tenth contributory system; the section under which the State buys the land for the farmer which he himself selects and he pays one-tenth and we pay nine-tenths. He is given a long period of time within which to repay that money. He pays no interest during the first year and thereafter the interest gradually increases until he eventually pays the normal rate of interest. That is one of the best schemes we have in South Africa. We now want to apply that principle to something new, namely to extend uneconomic holdings. What we intend doing is this: If he can acquire land adjacent to his we shall purchase his land and also the land adjacent to his and he can then pay his one-tenth share of the whole proposition from the portion of the purchase money he receives from us; we take out a consolidated title and let him have it under the conditions laid down in Section 20. That man then has 65 years within which to pay the purchase price. We paid him a good price for his land with the result that he is left with a little capital and he now has a holding which is big enough to allow him to make a reasonably good living on it without incurring too great a liability. You find, however, that in some cases land is not available immediately adjacent to his but some distance away. It is better to have your land all in one piece but in many areas of South Africa people have a piece of land here and another piece there and in those cases we can also assist them although we cannot give them consolidated title. We shall, however, enter into a consolidated hire purchase contract with him so that the land will be regarded as a unit while he owns it. This is the first step which we are taking to solve the very important problem of consolidating the position of farmers in South Africa whose holdings are uneconomic because they are too small. I think we are laying a foundation here on which we can build in the future and which will greatly contribute towards doing away with the position where so many of our people farm on uneconomic holdings.

We assist the person even further. In view of the fact that it would be unreasonable to expect such an applicant to pay transfer duty on the land which he previously owned and which is resold to him it is provided that that portion of the allotment price which represents the purchase price of the land concerned will be exempt from transfer duty and stamp duty.

In terms of our Land Settlement Act, if a person is four years in arrear with his interest and instalments on the purchase price I, as Minister, am obliged to cancel his contract. I have no option. Whether the reason is that he did not farm properly or that he neglected his farm or whether he suffered natural catastrophes which often happens—there is no water in his dams and he is without water for one or two years or hail may destroy his crops—whatever the reason may be I am obliged after four years to cancel his contract. In recent times particularly, because of the severe drought we have experienced, many people were four years in arrear. Once a person falls in arrear to that extent it takes him a long time to recover and he continues to be in arrear. We now want to change that and what we propose doing is this: If a person gets into debt because of droughts or other causes over which he has no control, we shall have the right to transfer his liability to a suspense account and eventually when he purchases the farm from us that money is added to the purchase price. That is better than to consolidate his debts because with consolidation that person is practically paying compound interest. In this case he is not paying any interest; we hold it over until he acquires the farm one day when it is added to the purchase price. He is not obliged to reduce it but he can if he wishes to do so. In most cases he can take transfer after ten years provided he has paid all his debts. Most of them take transfer of their land after ten years. They may perhaps borrow money elsewhere in order to redeem their liability to us, but in any case the liability remains in the suspense account until he wishes to purchase the land when it is added to the purchase price. This means that he will no longer automatically be deprived of his land when he is four years in arrear.

This is really a repetition of what happened in 1935. During the depression many farmers, settlers, got into the same difficulty in which farmers find themselves to-day. This was inserted in 1935 to be applicable to those farmers but it was not continuous and we are now making it continuous. It was only applicable to settlers and most of them were saved but we want to make it applicable to all farmers to-day as a fixed policy.

We now come to the question of advances. My experience has been that in the case of settlers their difficulty is this that they lack sufficient working capital at the beginning to develop their farms to the utmost of their productive capacity. There are two ways in which we can assist them. In terms of Section 42 of the old Act we can advance him money for improvements of a permanent nature on his farm and that is added to the purchase price; or we can advance him money in terms of Section 53 to buy movables such as equipment or stock. He has to repay that money within ten years. The maximum amount which we could advance him for these purposes has been R2,400. We were, however, faced with this difficulty that the advance for permanent improvement could only be made if the settler applied for it before commencing with those permanent improvements. Often the person says that he does not want to owe the Government anything but he wants to erect a shed on his farm or drill for water. He starts with the work and some catastrophe or other hits him; he runs out of money and he is unable to finish the job in which case he cannot come to us for assistance because the law provides that he must apply for assistance before commencing the work. In terms of the Act, as it will now read, we shall be able to advance money to a settler to cover any expenses he has or ought to incur to continue with his farming or to improve it. In other words we are now providing him with sufficient working capital and we can determine the period which we allow him to repay it or we can say that it will eventually be added to the purchase price of his farm. Let me just explain this.

Let us take the position of a person who starts farming. He needs working capital. He wants to buy a tractor for example. That is absolutely essential to start his farming operations, and that is why we shall be prepared to say that the money we are advancing him to buy that tractor will eventually be added to the purchase price. He farms for some time and his tractor becomes worn out and he wishes to replace it. We cannot again add the purchase price of the tractor to the purchase price of the farm. In that case we say that the lifetime of a tractor is five or six years and we allow him that period within which to pay us back. That is why we want the right to make this difference and to say that in the case of this advance we shall allow him so many years to pay us back, and in the case of that advance we shall add it to the purchase price.

Mr. Speaker, these are the most important provisions but there are a few others, however, which are not unimportant. The object of Clause 2 (a) is to bring this legislation into line with the Water Act and other legislation which was recently passed in connection with expropriation. Under the old Acts the power of expropriation originally vested in the Governor-General and subsequently in the State President, but under the New Acts that power vests in the Minister. What we are doing here is to provide for the Minister to have the right of expropriation and not the State President. In practice it means exactly the same thing but it saves us a great deal of unnecessary work. Clause 2 (b) simply states the position clearer. Then we have Clause 8. It often happens that a settler is given a subsidy for soil conservation work or water works which is credited against the purchase price of his holding. If he has not yet, however, exercised his option to purchase, the purchase price and consequently the rent cannot be reduced and that credit will now be placed in a suspense account. This change will enable the Department to reduce the rent which is based on the purchase price before the option is exercised, something which we could not do in the past. Furthermore when a lessee is moved to another holding the compensation for any improvements effected by him cannot be deducted from the purchase price of his new holding before he has exercised his option to purchase but in future we shall be able to do so. In future he will immediately enjoy the benefit of any improvements or the benefit of moving to another holding.

Clause 10 provides for the following: Very often it is impossible to make a living on a holding because of the fact that the land has become waterlogged or because of a shortage of water or other unfavourable conditions. If there is suitable State land in the vicinity additional land is allocated to the lessee of the holding. But it does happen, however, that the only State land in the vicinity is not available for unencumbered alienation. The land may, for example, be reserved for the construction of a storage dam or for some other public purposes. In that case the land is allocated to the lessee in order to extend his holding subject to the condition that if the land or a portion of it is required for the construction of a dam or for any public purposes, it can be repossessed at the same price at which it was allocated to him. We recently had a case where land was allotted under these conditions and the person went to court and judgment was given against us. We lodged an appeal which we won. We now want to state it quite clearly that where we encumber land by saying that we can repossess it if it is needed for irrigation purposes we can do so without any doubt.

Clause 10 (e) provides that whereas Section 60 of the old Act lays down that upon cancellation a lessee shall forfeit his contribution to the purchase price of the land, the cancellation of a contract in terms of Section 39 does not, however, carry a penalty with it. The object of the section would be defeated if the State were to forfeit its contribution. If a person receives a holding from us and we have to repossess that holding as penalty, he forfeits all payments which he has made to date in reduction of the purchase price. But what we are beginning to do is this: We are beginning to reorganize certain settlements and in order to do so we have to cancel the contracts of some people in order to place them on other holdings. We are doing that to-day along the Orange River at the new settlement, Gariep, which is being established to the north. We are taking the people from the southern end and placing them on larger holdings on the northern side. The only way in which we can do that is to cancel the person’s contract with his consent and to place him on a larger holding. In terms of the old Act, however, he forfeits any payments which he has made in respect of his former holding. What we are now doing is to carry over any payments which he has made and to credit them against his new holding.

There is another small matter. If we have to dig a furrow to take water to a settlement or, as so often happens, to lead water away which is there already so as to prevent the land from becoming waterlogged, and you have to traverse a corner of a person’s land and acquire a servitude to do so, the old deed had to be cancelled and a new one registered. Under (f), however, we now have the right to do this practically administratively.

There is one other important provision in regard to lessees of State land. There are people in certain parts who have been hiring land from us for many years. I have in mind places like Strijdomblok and Ten Bos in the Eastern Transvaal. Those people are very anxious to purchase that land from us but we cannot sell it to them because a big irrigation scheme will in all probability be started there some day. If we sell that land to them we shall at a later stage have to repurchase it from them if we want to erect irrigation works there. Those people are consequently obliged to occupy that land under leases only and that being the position we cannot advance them any money for the development of that land. What we are proposing here is this: A lessee of land—not a person who has a hire-purchase contract with us but a lessee of land—will also be entitled to advances from us for the development of his land, as, for example the drilling of bore-holes and the purchase of stock and seed. Many of these people are poor. They have this opportunity of hiring land from the State and they take it eagerly but after that they find themselves in difficulties. They do not have the capital to erect fences or to drill for water; we are practically saddled with those people. In terms of this provision of the Bill we shall be able to assist those people almost in the same way as we assist those who have a hire-purchase contract with us. We are not losing anything because all the improvements which are effected on that land enhance its value.

These are the most important provisions of the Bill. There are a few things which are of very great importance to our settlers. In particular we have the very important provision whereby we are practically starting to consolidate small farms and of placing those people who are on uneconomic holdings in a position to convert them into economic holdings without burdening themselves with a liability which they will never be able to discharge.

This Bill changes the original Land Settlement Act considerably, changes which effect great improvements and which we on this side of the House welcome. There is the one in particular which the Minister has mentioned where the opportunity is now created for those lessees whose holdings are too small to make those holdings larger. He also told us of cases where a person could farm economically on one morgen of land and where the other person could not farm economically on 2,000 morgen. That is quite right, of course, and provision has to be made for all those people who do not have economic holdings. We on this side welcome that. There is nothing in the Bill which we do not support.

There are one or two small points however. The Minister did not say anything about Clause 6. There has always been provision for reports to be submitted annually in respect of loans granted for acquisition of land on settlements and all the details were given. It is now provided that details need no longer be given. We take it that this is being done because the Department feels that to give details entails too much work. If that is the position the question arises whether those details are not really of greater importance than the trouble entailed in giving them.

Clause 13 provides that if a lessee does not pay his debts within 14 days of due date his property can be seized within 14 days. I wonder whether the period of 14 days is not a little short. One realizes of course that one should prevent him from disposing of it in the meantime, but there may be cases where people have actually paid and that a mistake had slipped in and in such cases they should be given an opportunity of clearing the matter up. We think 30 days will be better than 14 days. For the rest we are quite satisfied with the Bill and we shall support it.

I think that there are thousands of farmers in the Republic to-day who will be very grateful for the changes brought about by this Bill, changes which will make it easier to assist our farmers than has been the case in the past. The most important clause is the one explained by the hon. the Minister, the clause dealing with the consolidation of units. I know that a great deal of criticism has been voiced in the past in connection with the subdivision of land into so-called uneconomic units both on the more closer settlements and also in regard to purchases of land in terms of Section 20. It was said that the State itself was co-responsible for the subdivision of land into uneconomic units. I think that that criticism is unjustified if we see this matter in its right perspective and against the background of what has happened in the past, and that is that when certain land was subdivided the necessary information in regard to the carrying capacity of the land was not available nor did we have the norms which exist to-day in connection with economic farming operations. It was because of this the land was divided up into these so-called uneconomic units in certain areas at that time. And it is a good thing therefore that the Department should assist in re-arranging these units. I think that if we look at the matter historically there is no cause for great criticism. But in connection with this whole question of the efforts of the Department to consolidate various units we must also remember that as the Act stands at present it makes provision for the consolidation of uneconomic units. But there are certain shortcomings which the hon. the Minister now seeks to rectify. In the past a person could purchase a second unit of land but there was no machinery whereby the two units that he then possessed could be consolidated. The result was that when the Department tried to consolidate these uneconomic units into economic units, it found that it had no right to encumber the private property of such person. The Department had certain rights in respect of one part of the property but not in respect of the other part. What happened was that if such a person died or sold his own part of the property, the State was saddled with a portion of that property which was an uneconomic unit. The State thereupon tried to overcome this difficulty by providing that it should also be given jurisdiction over that part of the land owned privately by that person but the legal advice given to the State was that the State did not have the right to enrich itself at the expense of that person if the State did not compensate that person for the private land which the State consolidated with its own land. The legal advice was therefore that the State did not have the right to enrich itself at the expense of another person if the State did not compensate that person for the land. The State could say—and it did so in certain cases—“ I am taking over your land from you. I am consolidating it with the land that I have bought and I am not going to pay you out for your land”. This actually amounts to the State enriching itself and if the owner dies, it means that the State enriches itself without paying any compensation to such person for that land which that person owned in his own right. In terms of this measure the State will now be able to purchase property for such a person and pay that person out for the property which he owns in his own right. The State will then be able to consolidate these two units permanently into an economic unit. We are now reaching a stage where the Department of Lands can really start to have a share in the consolidation of uneconomic units in the Republic of South Africa. That is why I feel that this measure which is before the House to-day is important to the Department. I also feel that the Department will now be able to take a much more active part in this process which is needed throughout the whole country—that uneconomic units should be consolidated into economic units. I think that in this process the Department can play a very important part under the Act as it is being amended by this Bill. I think that this whole House and farmers in general are grateful to the hon. the Minister for having taken this step which will make it easier for the Department to play the role that it must play.

The hon. the Minister also remarked upon other important provisions, amongst others, the provision whereby arrear instalments will be transferred to a suspense account for recovery at some future date. I do not want to say much about this except that the hon. the Minister can also assist here in the case of persons who are affected by natural disasters, by circumstances beyond their control, and who therefore fall into arrears, because the tendency is still generally to try and assist persons who are affected by circumstances beyond their control. The Act has not permitted the hon. the Minister to render this assistance. The hon. the Minister will have the right to do so in terms of this measure and I think that farmers in general will be grateful to the hon. the Minister in this connection.

But there is another point that I would like to discuss briefly and that is in connection with the question of the temporary lease of land. There is a great deal of this land available in the Republic. There are also other parts besides the two mentioned by the hon. the Minister which will be affected by this provision. I think that there are 123,000 morgen of land in the Strydom block. The position in these cases in the past was that because these lessees had no title rights or any prospect of acquiring title rights, it meant that these people could never actually be given credit on the security of the property and this had a restrictive influence upon the development of that area. If such person could not obtain credit on the security of that property, it simply meant that he could not develop that property and the effect of this was that those areas could never develop to their full potential. The fact that the hon. the Minister is now opening this door also means that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will now be able to help in terms of the Soil Conservation Act and I think that I am right in saying that the subsidies in respect of these works will not be refused by the Department of Agricultural Technical Services.

Quite right.

I am pleased to have that assurance from the hon. the Minister. In other words, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services will therefore not refuse to make its contribution by way of subsidy. In the past the Department could not give a subsidy. The Department will therefore be able to intervene and also assist in regard to these works. Mr. Speaker, it is going to have this effect that a very large part of our country which has never been able to develop to its full potential will now for the first time be given the opportunity of developing to that full potential. When it is a question of tens of thousands or a hundred thousand morgen, it means that an area of that size will no longer be restricted in its development not only as far as agriculture is concerned but also as far as other things are concerned, and that the effect of this amendment of the Act will therefore be to eliminate that delay and to enable these areas to develop. These provisions will considerably improve the carrying capacity of the land, most of which is used for stock farming. It will be able to make a far better contribution to the general economy of the country and it will also be able to make a general contribution to the overall development of the area, apart from the agricultural development. The hon. the Minister is enabling these areas to come into their own. In saying this I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that as these areas could not be developed because the lessees could not obtain credit in order to develop their land, and as this land can now be developed within the scope of the provisions of this Bill, there is still something else that is needed. There is still one objection that I want to mention to the hon. the Minister and that is that this large area of land cannot become the property of the lessees. A man will now be able to obtain credit on that property to assist him in its development but the temporary nature of the lease still remains a hindrance and a burden. Because this is so I still feel that we ought to have some formula by means of which this land can become the property of those farmers. I am pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Mines is present here today—if I may have his attention for a moment. This land is mainly land that is encumbered because the Department of Mines retains the mineral rights on that land because it feels that it may need that land in the future. I feel that if the Department of Mines and the Department of Lands can work out a formula by means of which surface rights can be given to the farmers, thus assuring them of permanency, and by means of which the Department of Mines can still retain those mineral rights, then I feel that we will be going one step further in the development of these areas. I think that this is an urgent requirement. I also know that a great deal has been said along these lines. I know that the surface area involved is not a small area; it is a very large area indeed. I feel therefore that the hon. the Minister should give his attention to this matter and that we should find a formula by means of which to take this further step in order to give those farmers some permanency. I am convinced that I am expressing the gratitude of many of our people who have taken note of this measure and who are very grateful for what is being done here to-day, people who also see in this Bill the opportunity of being assisted in their farming operations and of being able to receive that assistance through the Department of Lands, assistance which could perhaps not be given in the past because the Act did not have the flexibility that it will have once this amending Bill is passed. That is why I think that everyone will be grateful to the hon. the Minister for having introduced this measure.

I would like to support the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) in his expression of appreciation for this Bill. It is a very good Bill, one of the best pieces of legislation ever brought before this House in regard to the development of our land settlements under irrigation. This Bill not only tidies up our land settlement legislation but it ensures the economic stabilization of our earlier land settlement schemes like Buchuberg, Kakamas and others, where the individual holdings in many cases were not more than seven morgen in extent. We realize that giving the opportunity to men to increase the size of their holdings will inspire them perhaps to get more out of their land and to take a greater pride in their holdings instead of regarding them just as places where they can make a living. This will perhaps inspire them to regard their holdings as places where they can progress and become more valuable citizens. I myself am particularly gratified because from year to year in this House on the Lands Vote I have stressed the need to increase the size of our holdings on our land settlement schemes and all that worries me now is whether the Minister has the land available for extending these holdings. Is the Minister going to exert pressure on tenants who are loath to leave the homes they have built up and to start again to develop new allotments? Sir, such instances will inevitably arise. I have some knowledge of the settlements; we know how settlers are crowded together; we know that certain settlers must give way in order to enable their neighbours to increase the size of their land. I know that there has been resistance in many cases because I have been on settlements where the income of the tenant has been very small and he has said, “well, we are very happy and we ask for no more”. Sir, we want to instil ambition in people who are put on the land, especially as we now have such great prospects with regard to the development of the Orange River Scheme where I imagine thousands of settlers will be put on the land and there will be increased production and increased circulation of money. This scheme will perhaps prove to be one of the most valuable assets in our country. The provision which is being made in this measure to assist people who have been through hard times is welcomed, but I do want to know how the Minister will exercise pressure on tenants who do not avail themselves of the privileges this Bill offers. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurance in that regard.

This Bill is a further proof of the tendency to amend our Land Settlement Act. Where the Land Settlement Act was in the past intended to rehabilitate unemployed people and people who had no other place to go, the Act has been so adapted over the past years that it has now become an Act in terms of which a person who wants to farm and is able to farm can be given land on which to farm at an economic price. In other words, this Act need not be used now to solve a poor-White problem. This Act affects 20 per cent of the 117,599 farmers in South Africa because the Department of Lands has over the years primarily been that Department that has settled 20 per cent of the farmers on the land. But this Act particularly affects the small-scale farmers who farm more intensively and those farmers who apply intensive farming methods under irrigation on the best and most expensive land in South Africa. To my mind the introduction of this measure is a red letter day because I believe that this measure flows partly from the motion that we adopted here a year ago asking for an inquiry to be made into uneconomic land units. This Bill makes it possible to adapt and solve this problem in a practical manner. Mr. Speaker, I said that this Act affects about 20 per cent of our farmers. There are three sections under which the farmers are assisted. In the first place, they are assisted under Section 20, the so-called one-tenth section. When we look at what has been done in the past in terms of this section we find that 8,410 farms were purchased under this section from 1912 up to the end of 1960. These farms covered an area of 4,902,281 morgen and cost R39,952,082. Of the farmers who have been assisted by means of this R39,000,000, 4,408 have already become the owners of their farms and have no longer to be carried and nursed along by the Department. They are farmers who have farmed so progressively that they are now able to apply to the Land Bank or to other bodies for assistance if they need it. In terms of this new provision farmers having uneconomic units will now be able to buy additional land for purposes of expansion, something which previously was completely impossible. But there are still 2,810 of these farmers who are lessees, farmers who can be assisted positively in terms of the various clauses in this Bill. But I want to point out that there have also been a number of cancellations of leases. These 2,810 farmers are now being assisted in this connection. As the hon. the Minister has already indicated, where these people were in arrears for four years and could not meet their obligations any longer, the Department was in the past compelled to take that land back. We know that there have been numbers of cases of this nature which have occurred as a result of droughts and other circumstances in which the integrity and the bona fides of those people could not be doubted. They simply became the unfortunate victims of natural circumstances and natural disasters—including droughts and foot-and-mouth disease. Those people could simply not be assisted in the past. When we think that from 1912 up to to-day more than 2,000 of these farming leases have had to be cancelled because those farmers have not been able to meet their obligations, we feel that it is a pity that we did not insert a provision of this nature in the Act a long time ago because we could then perhaps have saved a very large percentage of these people, if the hon. the Minister had in the past also had the discretion of granting an extension of time. As I have already said this Bill will enable the Department not only to consolidate the land belonging to these more than 2,000 lessees and to increase the size of those units, but a very important aspect is this: We have numbers of farmers in South Africa who bought small bits of land out of savings that they scraped together, uneconomic small pieces of land, farmers who in the past approached the Department of Lands for assistance under Section 20 but were simply disqualified because they already were the owners of land. The hon. the Minister mentioned the example here of an aunt of his who leased land. I want to mention another example. In my constituency I have a man who bought 85 morgen of land. The Department of Lands did not want to buy it. They simply said: “It is an uneconomic unit and we cannot buy it for you.” It was part of one farm that had been divided up into ten sections of 85 morgen each. This person bought one section of that farm. Later on, when he was farming sufficiently well on that one section, he applied to the Department to buy a second portion of 85 morgen and he was disqualified not because the land was economic but because he already was a landowner and the original 85 morgen could not be added to the second 85 morgen. He had then to try to buy 85 morgen elsewhere so that he would eventually have 170 morgen. Under this new provision a case of this nature can be dealt with immediately and a man will be able to obtain that land, particularly since the hon. the Minister is now providing that such a person will not have to pay transfer duty and so forth on his 85 morgen which would otherwise have to be taken into account.

But there is also another section in terms of which farmers have been assisted in the past. Mr. Speaker, I have told you that there were 1,192 lessees whose leases were cancelled or whose leases lapsed during that period. If this measure had been of application at that time, or if this provision had formed part of Act No. 21 of 1956, Act No. 13 of 1959 or Act No. 28 of 1960, we would have been able to save a large number of those farmers. We also have the farmers who were assisted to obtain land by the Department under Section 23—farmers who can also be assisted by means of this measure. We find that 12,695 of these small-holdings totalling 12,174,799 morgen and costing R28,301,802 were allocated. We find that of these farmers, 6,082 have already received their deeds of grant but there are still 4,032 lessees and these 4,032 lessees can all be assisted from to-day in terms of this measure. When we look back into the past we find that there were 2,481 farmers who were assisted under Section 23 and whose leases had to be cancelled because the Minister had no discretion to grant an extension of time. As in the previous case I want to say that if at that time we had had a provision in the Act like this provision in this Bill, I do not say that we would have been able to save all of those people because there will always be the weaklings whose leases will have to be cancelled, but I believe that we could have assisted a very large percentage of those people. But, Mr. Speaker, these are not the only two divisions. When we look at the other section governing the more thickly populated settlements, we find that from 1948 to 1961 the Department spent an amount of R6,216,000 in settling probationary lessees. They had already placed 128,000 morgen under irrigation and prepared the land for allocation. We find now, as the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) said, that many of the small-holdings falling under those 128,000 morgen have either become brackish or have become uneconomic because they are too small. In the past we had the problem of not being able to effect the necessary expansion and consolidation which will now be made possible by means of this Bill. I repeat that in terms of this measure we will now be able to assist all three types of lessees who in the past were assisted in such a wonderful way by the Department of Lands. Mr. Speaker, the Department made a survey in order to ascertain the average income of these farmers, and what was the finding? If one takes all the settlements—those falling under Section 20 and Section 23 and the more thickly populated settlements—we find that the average income of those farmers is a minimum of R3,600 if not considerably more, and this compares very favourably with the income of those farmers who are placed in categories 1 and 2 by the Department as people who do not need assistance. In other words, the Department has helped these people in the past to farm productively and economically but it has found that these shortcomings still exist.

There are a few cases that I want now to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, cases in connection with which we will always have problems. The Land Settlement Act provides that before the Minister can grant an extension, the Land Board has to certify that the land on which the man is farming is uneconomic. It is of no assistance for the Land Board to recommend that a man should receive an extension unless the Land Board certifies at the same time that the land on which that man is already farming is uneconomic. We find that the Land Board assists a farmer to purchase land under Section 20. The farmer certifies that he is satisfied that it is an economic unit and the Land Board and its inspector are also satisfied that it is an economic unit. But as a result of a fall in the prices of products and as a result of other circumstances one finds later that in reality that land is no longer an economic unit as far as that farmer is concerned, not because the soil has become brackish or barren but because of other circumstances. The Land Board is then often very hesitant to certify that that land is uneconomic. They are prepared to recommend that an extension should be given but they fear that if they certify that the land is uneconomic this will actually form a charge against their own judgment in that they assisted in buying that land. One experiences the same thing under Section 23— that the Land Board sometimes purchases land and divides it up into units of a certain size and then advertises that land and leases it to various people. If it is discovered later that those lessees cannot make an economic and decent living on that land, the Land Board is faced with this problem that if it certifies that those units are uneconomic, it is tantamount to a charge against itself in that either it paid too much for the land or that it subdivided the land injudiciously saying that those units were economic units. We want the hon. the Minister to try to solve this problem for us so that the Land Board will be able not only to recommend that an extension be given but to hand in a reasoned certificate certifying that land which it regarded as being economic at the time has now become uneconomic because, for example, the price of wool has fallen in the meantime from 102d. per lb. to 48d. per lb. This will enable us to help those people as well.

This measure makes specific provision whereby advances can be made by the Department of Lands to lessees under Section 23 and the more thickly populated settlements, and how those advances can be dealt with. It is important to know whether these are large or small amounts and when I look at the figures, I find that from 1948 to 1961, the Department of Lands made advances to our settlers for improvements to their farms—not for seed and artificial fertilizer but only for improvements—and for the purchase of stock and implements amounting to R4,108,713, which is a very large amount indeed. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister has now come forward with this measure in terms of which these amounts which are advanced in this way will not be governed by a period of ten years during which period the amount advanced will have to be repaid. It will now be possible to consolidate that amount with the purchase price, a purchase price having a rate of interest which is often not as high as the rate of interest for short-term loans.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to talk about the change in the rate of interest from 3½ per cent to the appropriate rate. That is the only logical and practical step that can be taken. But when I look at Clause 11 which inserts the new Section 41 bis there is one thing that appeals to me and that is that the arrear instalments which are transferred to the suspense account will be interest-free. I think that this is necessary because if the amount that a lessee is not able to pay is transferred to a suspense account and that lessee still has to pay the normal rate of interest on that money, which is usually compound interest, and if this amount is added to the purchase price at a later stage, together with the accumulated interest, that poor farmer will be so overcapitalized that we will actually be helping him out of the frying pan into the fire. But if we transfer those arrear instalments to a suspense account, as is provided for here, it will be of great assistance to those settlers and to those farmers.

It is not necessary for us to sketch the circumstances of those people who cannot meet their obligations but I do not want the taxpayers of South Africa to gain the impression that things are going far worse with our settlers and our farmers and that for that reason it has become necessary to effect this amendment to the Act, because that is not the case. The cancellations and statistics show that things are going steadily better with our settlers and farmers. I want to mention the figures for the House. From 1912 to 1929 a total of 8,334 leases were granted under Sections 20 and 23 and there were 1,700 cancellations. That is 20.4 per cent. I said just now that those leases were perhaps cancelled as a result of the inability of those people to meet their obligations. That is one of the most important reasons. From 1929 to 1939 a total of 3,973 leases were granted and there were 1,328 cancellations, in other words, 33.4 per cent of these lessees could not meet their obligations during this period. From 1939 to 1948, 3,441 were granted and 424 were cancelled, that is to say, 12.3 per cent. Immediately this Government came into power things improved to such an extent that the cancellations dropped from 20.4 per cent and 33.4 per cent to 12.3 per cent. When we take the last period, that is to say from 1948 to 1960, we find that 5,357 leases were granted and the number of cancellations was only 221—4.1 per cent. That the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) can say by way of interjection that this legislation is being introduced to meet an aggravated position, merely indicates ignorance. These are irrefutable facts which show that things are going steadily better with those farmers who have been settled on that land by the Department of Lands. It is only because the Government is anxious that the number of cancellations should not be 4 per cent but .4 per cent that it is introducing this legislation so that it can assist the farmers in such a way that their contracts will not be cancelled immediately at the end of the four-year period but that the hon. the Minister will still be able to exercise his discretion on the sound recommendation of the Land Board to keep those people on the land.

We know that the Land Board consists of practical farmers who have continually to deal with these matters. I also want to say that the Department of Lands is different to any other Department in South Africa. The people in the Department of Lands have actually grown up in that Department. Their work has become their life’s task. They are not people who are continually moving from one Department to another. They start at the bottom of the Department and they climb to the highest positions. Because his is so and because the Land Board consists of practical farmers they are so well acquainted with the requirements and personal integrity of the settlers that it is very seldom that they make injudicious recommendations that may cause result in a loss to the State. They will recommend that the Minister grant further extensions on the grounds of their sound knowledge of those people who must be given assistance. This assistance is given to enable those farmers to find their feet, something which they did not have before.

I do not want to discuss paragraph (f) of Clause 10 which deals with the exclusion of certain land. I just want to say that we are pleased that the Department is taking these steps to ensure that we will be assured of having economic units in the future. In order to understand properly how many farmers may be affected by this legislation it is perhaps necessary for me, at the risk of wearying the House, to mention these last few figures. If we take only the past five years we find that 906 holdings were purchased under Section 20 to an amount of R7,865,378. Under Section 23, 288 farmers were settled on land costing the State R2,157,635. In the case of the more thickly populated settlements, 170 holdings were allocated costing R1,174,770. I am not even going to discuss the question of advances. This indicates to us that this Department is doing its work.

I want to conclude on this note: A farmer who has the necessary knowledge and means to produce successfully and to find a profitable market for his products can be a successful farmer. When I say a farmer who has the necessary knowledge and means, I think we can tell the hon. the Minister and the Department of Lands to-day that they have once again shown by means of this legislation that they want to give those farmers the necessary means in the best way. We know that they convey this knowledge to the farmers through the medium of experiments which they make on the more thickly populated settlements. I believe that the settlers in this country will be grateful for this legislation for a long time to come.

As has been said by the hon. members for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and Albany (Mr. Bowker) this is a measure which we on this side of the House welcome as making better provision for the functioning of the Land Settlement Act, an Act which all of us in this House who represent rural constituencies have reason to welcome. The hon. the Minister has given the House certain information pertaining to the changes which are to be made in the principal Act. But there are certain other aspects of the amendments which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister in the hope that he will give us a little further information. Firstly, there is a reference to what is termed the appropriate rate of interest. That no doubt is a very appropriate phrase but as it is of very great importance to anyone who has incurred a liability under the Land Settlement Act and as it takes the place of previously defined rates of interest such as 3½ per cent or 4 per cent or what is often termed in the principal Act as the “current rate of interest”, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would tell the House what the effect of this change would be and what considerations would govern any decision in fixing what is now called the appropriate rate.

There is a provision in Clause 10 whereby the Minister may exclude land from any holding by agreement with the person concerned. One can readily understand circumstances whereunder it is necessary to exclude certain land. The point I wish to make is this that in the event of the Minister being unable to come to an agreement with the settler concerned as to the conditions under which certain of his land is to be excluded, what will then happen? One wonders whether there is some other provision providing for arbitration of some kind or whether there is a reference to some person or other to settle a dispute of that kind. It says quite clearly in Clause 10 (f) that these exclusions are to be made upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon with the lessee, that is the settler. And upon those conditions as may be agreed the Minister requiring any land may exclude that land from the holding. Unless there is provision made somewhere else one foresees that, as there has to be agreement before the Minister can so exclude land, the hon. the Minister may be in difficulties if he comes across a particularly stubborn lessee.

There is a very welcome concession in Clause 11 whereby outstanding rent can be placed in a suspense account if the Minister is satisfied that the failure to pay the rent was due to circumstances such as drought, flood, pests, locusts and things of that kind. As has been mentioned by a number of speakers already this is a particularly necessary change and one which is greatly welcomed.

There is another clause which occasions some wonderment when one reads it and that is Clause 12. I raise this point, Mr. Speaker, because that Clause provides for the making of advances to the allottee of land in certain circumstances set out there. One wonders why it is necessary in Clause 12 to make this amendment to Section 42 bearing in mind that there are existing provisions under the existing Section 53 for making advances and allotments and things of that kind to persons in terms of the Land Settlement Act as it stands. I merely raise this because as far as one can see upon reading this Bill Clause 12 seems to provide for facilities to be made available to an allottee of land which already exist under Section 53.

Then one comes to Clause 13 which was dealt with to a certain extent by the hon. member for Gardens. Provision is made there for the seizing and selling up of a farmer’s stock should he fail to pay certain dues within 14 days of their being due, dues such as payment in respect of the purchase price, rent, interest or water rates. The hon. member for Gardens suggested one way out of the difficulty and that was to extend the period of 14 days. But there is another possible approach to that problem and I want to put it to the Minister for his consideration. The situation may arise where there is a genuine and bona fide dispute between the authorities and the settler concerned as to whether any amount is in fact due. The authorities may take the point of view that in law that money is due and owing and the settler may take the point of view, equally bona fide, that that money is not in law due. Surely in that circumstance there ought to be provision made whereby that dispute can be re-referred to some tribunal for settlement. I would suggest a court of law. In those circumstances the Minister ought not to have the power to be able to sell up the stock of that individual for the payment of that money when the latter genuinely believes that it is not due. That is a further aspect of the matter that I would ask the Minister to reconsider.

There is an interesting provision in Clause 16 whereby certain deletions are made to the provisions in the existing Act. In particular Section 70 and Section 71 as they stand at present make provision for the incorporation of conditions in the title deeds of land granted in terms of the Land Settlement Act that it shall no be transferred to persons other than Europeans. These provisions are to be deleted. In other words, it is now free for land to be allocated under the Land Settlement Act to persons of any race. If one is a settler under the Land Settlement Act one may then transfer unencumbered to persons of any race. One wonders why it is necessary to make this change. There are no doubt good reasons but we should be glad to hear them. Those are the points which have occurred to me in perusing this legislation; matters of change of some importance upon which it would be interesting for the Minister to give this House some additional further information.

We have reached a new stage in South Africa where all the available land is now occupied. There is no more State land available. On the contrary, the amount of land available is continually decreasing. It has been estimated by an expert that 14 per cent of our land is already covered by towns, cities, parks and other communal facilities to-day. The farmers occupy the remaining 86 per cent, including roads, rivers and so forth. In other words, we have reached a position where about 110,000 units have already been allocated, a position in which 103,000,000 morgen of land has to-day been divided up into 110,000 units. And so these units are already becoming smaller and smaller. The position is therefore that we no longer have land available for occupation. This great land hunger means that those units amounting to approximately 1,000 morgen, if the total amount of land is divided by the number of units, will steadily become smaller and smaller. The young man wishing to enter the farming industry is accordingly dependent almost entirely upon State assistance. If the State does not make certain assistance available a difficult position can develop as far as capital is concerned. More than 50 per cent of the population is dependent, directly or indirectly, upon agriculture. In other words, it forms a very imporatnt part of our country’s industries. We welcome this Bill and I am pleased that this step is also appreciated by hon. members opposite. We want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. The problems connected with our settlements and with our future development in this sphere will be greatly eased by means of this legislation. There are certain other minor difficulties, but I think that generally we welcome this legislation and at this stage we want to thank the hon. the Minister for having taken these steps. We welcome this legislation too particularly in view of the problems which we have experienced lately in the form of natural disasters such as droughts and so forth. I think that the less important problems raised by the Opposition can easily be overcome by means of the supervision and control that will be exercised in terms of this legislation.

I wish to confine my remarks to a few of the most important points in this legislation. I also want to express the view that it is surely quite exceptional for a measure to be received in this House in the way in which this measure has been received. This holds good for both sides of the House. I hope I will be excused for saying that it is seldom we have a piece of legislation before us which so adequately meets the requirements of the times in which we live. It has been correctly stated here that we must provide our up-and-coming farmers with land. If we do this in an incorrect and haphazard fashion we cannot expect good results. I take the liberty of saying this afternoon that I represent perhaps one of the most extensive constituencies, a constituency in which a great deal of use can be made of the Department of Lands for the purchase of land. My constituency is one of the new areas in which development is still taking place and where land is still available for occupation. I think that every person in the country is pleased that the hon. the Minister has given us a measure which will enable these younger farmers to enter the farming industry with assurance. I also want to say that we were particularly pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister what he considered to be an economic unit. When I supported the motion of the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) last year, I pointed out how easily one could go wrong if one were to interpret the motion literally and seek to draw a line through the country and say: “This is an economic unit in this area, and that is an economic unit in that area”. Nothing of that nature exists, Sir. Every farm is a unit in itself and it must be regarded as such.

After having listened to the hon. the Minister this afternoon I just want to express the hope that the Government will follow his guidance in connection with the general policy as far as economic assistance to farmers is concerned. Account will also have to be taken of what is considered an economic holding when assistance is being given to farmers. If we follow the approach revealed by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, I feel that there will be no danger of people being deprived of State assistance because their land is not large enough. It is not only the Land Board which assists farmers; we also have the Land Bank, as well as private financial institutions, which take cognizance of what is done by State institutions. I am convinced that in the application of these provisions the hon. the Minister of Lands will become the greatest father of lands and agriculture in South Africa. He will have a great task because farming in future will have to be planned along the lines suggested by him. I want to wish him the greatest measure of success in this regard. I want to assure him that this legislation will be welcomed generally and I hope that these will be the lines of approach that will be followed on the agricultural front generally.

I cannot resume my seat without first doing what I do every year and that is to stress the hope that the hon. the Minister will also ensure that where land values have risen, the amount of money made available by the Department will be increased in order to prevent people buying uneconomic units because the amount of money made available by the Department is insufficient.

I increased that amount a few months ago.

I want to thank the hon. the Minister. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister in this way: He must not bind himself. He must treat every case on its merits. If any farm is an economic unit and the price is not too high he should not impose the same departmental limits in every case. I should very much like to give the hon. the Minister a little sound advice, and that is that he should treat every case on its merits. I am sure that this will be welcomed throughout the country. I know that we have perhaps already said too much about this legislation. I have raised the most important point; I consider the points raised by the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and others as consequential matters that we can deal with further at the Committee Stage. Indeed, I am not afraid that we will not be able to iron out those problems because we know the Department of Lands. The Department has over the years given all the assistance that it has been able to give under the provisions of the Act. It is for that reason I am also so pleased that that four-year limit has now been removed. I think that that was one of the best things that could have been done. It often happens that we have conditions of drought in a particular area for a period longer than four years, in which case the Minister is powerless to act. He then has to cancel the lease in terms of the Act and thereby may perhaps be removing one of our most promising farmers from the land.

The hon. the Minister is not here at the moment but I would like to make use of these few minutes at my disposal. The hon. the Minister spoke appreciatively of the sympathetic action of his aunt in connection with one of her lessees. It is a good thing that we have a Minister such as this who reflects the sympathetic attitude of his aunt, because if there has ever been a Minister with a soft spot for the farming community, it is this Minister of Lands. This Bill evidences a sound rural policy, the ideal of which is to provide economic units, for people with a land hunger, so that they will eventually be able to become independent. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that the settlers who have been placed there in terms of Section 20 and those who have been settled in terms of Sections 16 and 23 will welcome this measure to-day. We must view this measure particularly against the background of the crippling droughts which we have experienced recently. I also want briefly to view this Bill against the background of conditions in my own constituency, where we have one of the most successful settlements—the one at Hartebeespoort Dam. We have had to cope with severe drought conditions there. In 1961 a severe hailstorm damaged the tobacco crop to such an extent that within a few minutes a promising crop was completely destroyed. We again experienced a crippling drought this year. The dams were practically empty and a large number of settlers found themselves in the critical position of having fallen into arrears with their financial obligations towards the State. It was not their fault that they fell into arrears, because they are people with initiative and determination and a great deal of courage. Since the primary aim of a sound settlement policy is to have independent farmers, we are pleased that the hon. the Minister has realized that certain climatic conditions arise even in regard to the more thickly populated settlements where the farmers enjoy protection under the Act, which prevent these people developing into independent farmers. It is for this reason that these stricken farmers will welcome this measure. I think that the crux of this whole Bill is the provision in terms of which the hon. the Minister states that as a result of those natural disasters he is going to transfer all those arrear instalments to a suspense account. Those arrear instalments are being frozen. They are being transferred to a suspense account and they will not incur interest. Now, we must admit that a Minister and a Government and a Department which act in this way must create goodwill. Hon. members opposite must not think that I am speaking with an ulterior political motive. If I were to do so, I would have to remind hon. members about the time of Senator Conroy, but I do not want to do so to-day. I want to deal with this matter quite objectively. The hon. the Minister is here creating the right spirit, which is so necessary as far as these settlements are concerned. A Department is often cold and machine-like in its actions, but if there is one Department which acts sympathetically and which is creating goodwill between the Departments of State and the settlers, it is this Department, and by means of this legislation as well. The only time that that debt will become payable will be when the settler wants to take transfer of that land. I think that he will then appreciate that he will have to fulfil financial obligations to the extent of quite a few hundred rand and that is why I see in this one of the methods that will prevent farmers from disposing of their land too easily. Those arrear instalments go into a suspense account. One often finds people who prey on settlers in an unscrupulous manner if those settlers have suffered setbacks. They do this to get possession of that land because then those settlers are compelled to sell their land. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his psychological action in this hour of need of the settlers where we have had these crippling droughts and destructive hailstorms and unfavourable climatic conditions, of having introduced a Bill here which in my view protects the settlers in South Africa. Because those arrear instalments are being frozen, the settler will now be able to start again with a clean sheet, whereas before he would have been doomed to having his lease cancelled and being ruined overnight. Now he can once again use his initiative and strong determination and in this way that settler will be rehabilitated. It is here that I want to thank the hon. the Minister heartily for his assistance to these settlers during these difficult times.

Tell him to write it off.

That is the tvpe of irresponsible statement that is made. That amount has to be written off. I want to tell the hon. member that if she knows anything about settlements she will know that a man who wants to be a farmer and only a farmer does not want to be dependent upon the State. To come forward at this time of need and write off these amounts left and right would simply be irresponsible, and not permissible in terms of the Act. The hon. the Minister has introduced a wonderful Bill here which will give permanent assistance to the farmer. To come along here and say that these amounts must be written off—well, all that we can write off is the United Party.

You have not read the Bill.

That is not necessary. I know the Bill. [Laughter.] Why should I read the Bill here? It is childish to want to read it here. One has to interpret the spirit of the settler and those hon. members know nothing about that. I must say that I am greatly tempted to discuss the whole Conroy question here, but I do not want to do so. Clause 7 forms the crux of the Bill, but it is not necessary to read it again because, Mr. Speaker, you will accuse me of repetition.

As far as the other provision in connection with the small economic units is concerned, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in this I see irrefutable proof that the Department of Lands is going to increase its activities to a very large extent in the future because a large number of farmers who are at present struggling to make a difficult living on uneconomic units will now be brought within the framework of this Bill. The hon. the Minister will now be able to take an option on the small uneconomic unit; the farmer will contribute his one-tenth; he will have the money to continue his farming operations and, moreover, he can purchase another piece of land and consolidate the two units into one economic unit. This will certainly be a happy day for the farmers in South Africa, the farmers who have small uneconomic units, when they will now be protected by the Department of Lands so that they can continue their farming operations without fear. It is good to know that when these climatic setbacks are again experienced, hundreds of additional farmers will be assisted by the Department of Lands so that they will be able to survive these disasters. The main aim of a sound settlement policy in the meantime remains unchanged, and that is to enable the farmers in South Africa to become independent and self-supporting.

I should like to convey to hon. members on both sides of the House my heartfelt thanks for their support of this Bill. It shows that Parliament recognizes a good Bill when it sees it. This Bill breaks new ground for the Department of Lands. Thus far the Department of Lands has confined itself, as regards farming, to settlers it had been party to place on the land, but it now assumes a new function and that is what I should like to call not the settlement of farmers on the land, but the re-settlement of such farmers. The primary function of the Department of Lands was the settlement of people initially on economic farms—I shall revert to this at a later stage—but in any event to place people on the land. Now we enter a new field and we are assuming a new function, and that is that the people who were in danger of being driven from the land, will now be placed under our charge and we shall try to make it possible for them to remain on the land. That is a new function. The Department of Lands under this new function will come into contact with a large section of our farming community with which it never came into contact before. The assistance I have mentioned here, where we shall be helping people who possess holdings that are too small, is not confined to farmers who were settled by the Department of Lands under the Land Settlement Act, but it relates to farmers who came there in any manner, but who now find themselves in difficulties. We can assist them under Clause 20. That is why it is a great extension of the functions of the Department of Lands, and I should like hon. members to appreciate that fully.

As regards the function of the Department of Lands in the past, namely the settlement of people on land here in South Africa, I think I may say that from 1910 to the present day settlement has generally been a great success, and the adversity we have had during recent years is not of a lasting nature, and is not attributable to faults in the system. To a great extent it is due to weather conditions or economic circumstances over which the settlers have had no control. But generally speaking the work the Department has done is something it may look back upon with a large measure of pride. As the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) has said, the Department of Lands is almost like an empire on its own, and a citizen of the Department of Lands usually remains a citizen of the Department of Lands. During the 50 years or more the Department has been in existence, it has gained an enormous amount of experience in the matter of land settlement, and I may tell hon. members that the knowledge gained in connection with land settlement is a very specialized knowledge. There you not only have to deal with economic problems; not only do you have to deal with land values; not only do you have to deal there with the planning of settlements under irrigation but one of the most important aspects of that Department is the relationship between the Department itself and those settlers who regard themselves as the children of the father. The father is the Department and they are the children of that father; and the Department adopts a paternal attitude; a paternal relationship exists between the heads of the Department on the one hand and the thousands of settlers on the other hand who were placed on the land through their endeavours. To preserve that relationship is something one can only achieve on the basis of years of experience, which the Department has. That also is the reason why when from time to time difficulties arise, those people are best able to surmount the difficulties and to put right what is wrong. During the 50 or 60 years they have built up a tradition within that Department in connection with this work that is unique.

In this Bill we are not so much concerned with people who are in difficulties because they are not good farmers, but we are concerned here particularly with the man also who is a fine farmer, but who as a result of circumstances over which he has no control, is in a sorry plight. Now we have to help that man in such a way that we do not help him out of the frying pan into the fire. We have to help him in such a way that we afford him an opportunity to create a future for himself, and to make an economic success of his farming activities without having the burden of debt on his neck that is always holding him down. That is the problem we are confronted with. In regard to both the settlers and the people in possession of small pieces of land, the problem has been to set such people on their legs economically and to give them financial assistance without placing a millstone round their necks that will always be pulling them under. I think I can say that in this legislation we have succeeded in doing just that, and that we shall be able to assist thousands of our people, and will be able to set them on their legs economically without saddling them with that intolerable burden.

Hon. members have raised various points here on which I should like to say a word or two. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) and the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) have asked why only 14 days’ notice is given in cases where we attach. Hon. members should remember that when we attach the movables of a man who does not pay his debts, it is not his property we are seizing, but our own property. It is our plough, it is our harness, it is our horse, our ox, our mule, our sheep, all of it is ours. All we are doing now is that after years of struggle, we give him 14 days final notice. It does not come out of the blue as the hon. member for Zululand seems to think, and that the man now suddenly gets notice that unless he pays within 14 days, we will seize his property. Before we take that step, we have already struggled with that man for years, and the 14 days we are proposing is exactly the same as the period they get under State Advances. This machinery has been taken over from the division of State Advances. Then as regards the returns for submission to Parliament, hon. members desire those particulars. I have no objection to such particulars being furnished, but it would mean a lot of work for the Department. Now we furnish the total amounts, and I think unnecessary work is being eliminated thereby, for there are very few members who go into the minute particulars.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg (Mr. S. P. Botha) has said that the holdings are frequently cut too small, and it appeared to me that he now wished to defend the Department a little by saying that it was not really the fault of the Department that holdings frequently were cut too small in the past. Mr. Speaker, in the past holdings were cut too small because the object of settlement in the past frequently was not the same as it is at the present time. In actual fact land settlement started in our country on a large scale during the depression years when farmers lost their farms and had to go and work on the roads. We then developed small farms along the Orange River, and that was the beginning. We told them it would be better for them to go and work on the small farms than to work on the roads. It was charity we gave them. The farms at the time were small, but the man was able to earn more there than he was receiving elsewhere. In those days farms were cut too small for the modern conception of land settlement, for the modern conception of land settlement is not that we want to have a man on a settlement because he has made a failure of his farming activities at another place, or because he is an indigent person who is unable to earn something. Our present policy is only to allot State land to people who we know will utilize the land properly, and who will make a success of farming. We are no longer living in the old days when people sought refuge in a State settlement because they were in need. That poor-White problem has been solved. We no longer have those people. To-day there is work for everyone in South Africa. That is why we can be selective and take the people who we know will make a success of farming, and the man who cannot make a success of farming can make a success of another vocation or trade, and if he is unable to make a success of anything anywhere, we do not want him on State land either. We have to see to it that the property of the State and of the people is used properly. In the past we cut too small, and now we are trying to rectify that position. Nor is it very long ago that land was still allotted which was not large enough. After the war when costs of production were comparatively low and the prices of products were exceptionally high, everybody thought that a big profit could be made on a small piece of land from single crop farming, for instance maize. That land became exhausted; rotation was not applied; costs of production rose; prices of agricultural products dropped and holdings that in 1947-8, 1949, 1950 were economic holdings later became uneconomic. That is why we have learnt a lesson and I have given instructions, and these instructions are being carried out, that we now have to examine every holding very carefully to satisfy ourselves that when we allot it, it is an economic holding. We are doing this not only through the Land Board, but we also enlist the assistance of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, and the holdings are now being examined as they have never been examined before to ensure that they are economic holdings. In the same manner the candidates for the holdings are selected by the machinery I have created and which is much more thorough than ever before. We now try to get only the best people, and we have thus far achieved very good results because we are settling them on economic holdings, for I am responsible for those properties of the State, and I have to see to it that there is no abuse of those properties. To effect this we often have to apply reorganization. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is not here now, but I can give him the assurance that in many instances I should like very much to be able to exert pressure on people, but unfortunately I do not have the legal power to do so. We find that with transfers, when we reorganize a number of holdings, the good farmer is very prone to say: “All right, I shall get out; give me something better and I shall go there”. The weakling stays behind, the man who says: “Well, I have been farming here for so many years, and I do not feel like moving to a new place at my age”. We cannot exert pressure on him; we cannot use force to compel him to move. We can only try to persuade him.

The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) asked what is the appropriate rate of interest, and why this provision is put in here. Well, actually the appropriate rate of interest is the rate at which the money is raised, which is the ruling rate of interest at the time. That is meant here. It is only fair that where the State has to borrow money to help someone on a settlement that he should pay not less than the rate the Government is paying for that money. That is all it means, and of course that changes from time to time. But the particular person knows that at the time when he is granted his plot, the rate of interest is a certain figure. He knows that the rate of interest will be the rate prevailing at the time. Then the hon. member referred to expropriations. We have got the right under Section 52 to do any of the following things on a land settlement scheme: We can build dams or reservoirs, we can build water-furrows, we can put down pipe-lines, we can put down drainage sluits, we can put down a railway line, we can put down roads and various other things, and we pay compensation to the person whose land is cut off or appropriated by us for the purpose. The hon. member’s question was whether if a man is not satisfied with the price we are prepared to pay him, has he any method of redress? If the hon. member will read the old Act a little further, he will see that provision is made for arbitration under Section 65. So he has redress if he feels that he is not fairly dealt with. The hon. member also asked questions about Sections 42 and 53. What we are doing here is simply to consolidate those two sections. That is what it boils down to in fact, the consolidation of the provisions of 42 and 53. Certain things are taken out of 42 and certain things are taken out of 53. For instance the time limit in 53 is taken out and we do not advance in future under 42. We take the two as one scheme.

Then as regards to the question that under Clause 16 there is a new provision, I am glad the hon. member raised the matter because it might give rise to certain misconceptions. Previously if the owner of a plot under a land settlement scheme disposed of that to a member of another race than his own, he had to get permission from the Governor-General at that time, and later from the President to do so. and that is now done away with. The reason why it is done away with is that the Group Areas Act applies and this provision is no longer necessary.

Are there not many areas where the Group Areas Act does not apply?

I am informed by my Department that that is not the case. I asked them that question specifically and I am informed that it applies everywhere where this Act applies. If it is not so, I will have the position put right. If it can be shown to me that that is not correct, then I will restore the old position.

I think I have dealt with all the questions now, and I again want to thank hon. members for their support of this Bill. I hope this measure will be to the benefit of a large number of our farmers who are in difficulties to-day.

I move the following amendment—

The effect of that is that it qualifies the Minister’s discretion which reads—

1. (a) shall be imported into the Republic; or
2. (b) shall be imported into the Republic, except under the authority of and in accordance with the conditions stated in the permit issued by him or by a person authorized by him.

As I say, the effect of this amendment will be to restrict the Minister’s discretion in that he will only act in terms of these sections if there is a threat to the Republic’s monetary reserves or if there is a serious decline. I am sure that the hon. Minister will welcome this amendment for three reasons. In the first place, it accords with the policy of the Government as announced in the past by Ministers of Finance and by Ministers of Economic Affairs, and the policy announced as recently as the beginning of this month by the hon. Minister who is piloting this legislation through Parliament himself, viz. that the main purpose of import control is to protect the monetary reserves of the Republic, and that import control is not there for any other purposes like for instance protecting industries. I say therefore that for that reason alone, the Minister should accept the amendment, because it simply puts into the Act what has been declared Government policy up to the present. In the second place it accords with the obligations that the country and the Government already has in terms of G.A.T.T. In Art. 12 of that agreement the wording is very much to the same effect as the amendment proposed by me here, in other words that a country will only use physical import control measures if there is a threat to its monetary reserves. That is a second reason why I feel sure the Minister will accept this amendment. But there is also a third reason why the hon. Minister should welcome this amendment, because despite the fact that he and other Ministers have repeatedly warned industrialists that import control is not there to protect industry, and as the Minister himself recently said, in so far as it has been protected in the past, it has been incidental. But despite those warnings and the declared policy, there is nevertheless an impression amongst many industrialists that import control is there to protect them and that they rely on it to a certain extent. This will make Government policy clear to them what the position is, namely that only when the country’s balance of payment is in danger that import control is to be used, and that it can only be regarded as an incidental advantage to them, and that the proper instruments for protecting industry and stimulating industrialization is tariff protection. I say therefore that for these three reasons I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment, because it is in accordance with Government policy, because it is in accordance with the Government’s international obligations, and to make its policy clear to intending and present industrialists.

I think that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has himself proved the futility of this amendment that he has moved because he has built his whole argument on two main points. The first point he made was that it has been the policy of this Government and of the Minister up to the present—and the most important reason for the application of control—to protect the reserves. He said: “The prime or main purpose is to protect the monetary control If he puts it in those words, it is clear that that is not enough. If he wanted to be convincing in his argument, he should have said that that was the only reason. But he said that it was the “prime or main purpose For that reason alone I feel that the hon. the Minister would not be justified in accepting this amendment and I want to ask him not to accept it. I feel that as long as there are other aims, as long as there are other motives which can possibly be used to the advantage or in the interests of the economy of South Africa, it is not desirable to include a provision in legislation that can only be used for a restricted purpose.

The hon. member went further and said that in so far as it offered protection to commerce and industry, this was only an incidental protection.

Can you perhaps suggest what the other intentions are if the intention is not to protect the reserves?

I was just on the point of replying to that question. The hon. member said: “It is only an incidental protection Well, if it does afford protection to our local trade and industry in this country, let it be incidental protection, I say that it is a good thing which can be applied in the interests of trade and industry in South Africa. [Interjection.] Even though it be incidental, I still say that if that protection is to the advantage of trade and industry in this country, let it be incidental. That is why I say that to accept this amendment will mean that this measure will be restricted to such a degree that to a large extent it will lose its usefulness. Hon. members opposite are the fathers of the measures which provide for what we are now seeking to place on the Statute Book. In the past, when they had it under their control, they did not insert the amendment that the hon. member for Jeppes is now seeking to insert. It was not necessary then but it has always been done with the same purpose in mind. Why should the Minister be so restricted in his administrative implementation of these provisions that he can be asked at some or the other time to prove that it is only being done within the limits of the measure proposed by the hon. member? That is why I feel that this amendment is not justified and it will be silly to accept it.

The speech of the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) is to me indicative of the confusion of thought that exists on the Government side as to what import control is really intended for. He attacks the hon. member for Jeppes because the latter said that import control was a temporary measure to assist the country in controlling its foreign reserves. He said that the hon. member for Jeppes had said that the prime or main purpose was in connection with currency control. Will not the hon. member for Ceres admit that the prime reason for currency control today is the flight of capital from this country, and that because so much capital has been leaving the country the Government finds itself unable to remove import control completely at present, although it has gone a long way over the last few years to remove a lot of the difficulties caused to commerce and industry? I want to support this amendment and I hope the Minister will agree with the reasons put forward by my colleague, because they are irrefutable. As the hon. member for Jeppes pointed out, this wording follows more or less precisely the requirements of G.A.T.T., and we are under an obligation to G.A.T.T. in regard to the matter. It seems to me that if the Minister refuses to accept this amendment he is still nevertheless obligated under the G.A.T.T. agreement to act according to these words. It seems to me that by refusing to accept this amendment, which does not change the position as far as he is concerned, all he is doing is to give our enemies more ammunition against us in future, and we all know from what has happened in the past that there is very little that we do which is not turned against us, so why gratuitously give our enemies more ammunition? I fear that if the Minister refuses to accept the amendment the thought will be strengthened that import control is being used for a purpose which the Government and the Ministers themselves have so often said it is not intended for, namely the protection of industry. I repeat that in discussions on this matter with the Government side of the House, we are continually striking a confusion of thought and expression. Last night I heard the Minister say something about the great difficulties that might arise for a particular industry which was being protected at the moment by import control if certain things were imported and the protection given to them by import control did not work. But that is not the policy enunciated by the Government, as we on this side understood it. We all know that import control is tied up with the country’s external currency reserves, and I would point out that if the position arises that there are no foreign currency difficulties—I am not suggesting that that will happen in the near future unless there is an increase in the price of gold—import control will then obviously fall away, and what will then be the position of industries which have used import control to build themselves up inefficiently and to the detriment of the country? I can see no sound reason for the Minister refusing this amendment and I hope he will accept it.

I cannot understand why the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) should move such a childish amendment. He is a lawyer and he should explain to us why that same qualifying provision was not contained in the emergency regulations drawn up by his party.

That was 25 years ago.

Yes, but we still had courts of law then as we have to-day. If we adopt this qualifying provision whereby the Minister will only be able to take action if the purpose of the prescribed restriction is to ward off a threat to the Republic’s financial reserves or to put a stop to a serious fall in those reserves, it will mean that every import control measure that is taken can be tested in court and this will frustrate the whole purpose for which this provision is being made because then the Judge will have to pass judgment on a matter of a purely economic nature—whether the Minister was justified in imposing that restriction or not. The Judge will have to determine whether the Minister’s action complies with the qualifying provision. I think that it is the general practice in this House that if a law is made, one does not include in that law arguments as to why that law is being passed. One cannot do so. The Minister will be in court more than he will be out of it if we have a provision of this nature. I feel that this is completely impracticable and I want the hon. member to use his legal knowledge—if he has not already forgotten it—and realize that this whole thing is completely impracticable.

The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) amazed me. In the first place he obviously does not know the difference between a wartime economy and a peacetime economy, and he assumes that we are still on a war-time economy footing. Is that the attitude of his party?

It has nothing to do with that.

But the hon. member has compared the measures taken by the United Party during wartime with these measures. All the considerations which are applicable to-day were not of application then. Nobody worries about free trade in time of war. The Government decides what are and what are not essential imports. The purpose at the time was not to protect industry or to protect the reserves but was to make the best use of the limited amount of shipping space. The whole idea was to import goods which the Government regarded as having a high priority. There was no question of a trade balance. Does the hon. member not remember that we paid off our foreign debts to a large extent during the war because we had a favourable trade balance, because it was impossible to import goods? But he is now comparing that position with the present position.

That was not my most important point.

Let me discuss his second point. He said that he felt that I had lost my feeling for the law because I did not want to appreciate the fact that if the Minister was given a discretion that discretion should be so wide that there would be no restriction imposed on the Minister. In other words, one must never restrict the discretion given to a Minister. That is a ridiculous argument. The whole idea of Parliament is to restrict the discretion of the Minister as far as possible. But our attitude is different from that of hon. members opposite. One has to restrict that discretion as far as possible. If that is the view of the hon. member, then we will never agree. Our attitude is that in certain cases the Minister must be given a discretion but that that discretion must be restricted as far as possible. The hon. member forgets, in drawing comparisons between what we did in the past and what is being done here, that the G.A.T.T. Agreement has come into being in the meantime and that we have obligations under that agreement. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not listen to the arguments of that hon. member and that he will accept the amendment.

Who is to judge whether the Minister’s import control provisions comply with the requirements of this amendment? That is my point.

The test is very simple. In spite of this restriction the Minister still has a very wide discretion. If in his opinion it is necessary to do something, he can take action and the court can only intervene if the Minister has acted mala fide.

But it does not say “in the opinion of the Minister”.

The hon. member must read the amendment again. It states: “The Minister may whenever he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest …”. This gives him his discretion, and the restriction on that discretion states: “… provided that the prescribed resrictions shall be for the purpose of forestalling an imminent threat”. [Interjection.] I am not prepared to argue a point of law with hon. members. That is the position in law.

Frequent reference has been made here to the G.A.T.T. Agreement, and our obligations thereunder, but this legislation does not concern those obligations. What we are concerned with here are certain statutory powers we desire to have. There are many countries belonging to G.A.T.T. and who possess powers that are in conflict with that agreement. The fact of the matter is that although we may have this legislation, we still have to observe that agreement. Emphasis is constantly laid upon the fact that the G.A.T.T. makes provision that we have to have regard to our balance of payments, but that is not all. Under the G.A.T.T. also we have the right to apply these measures in the event of a particular industry being threatened. I am mentioning this merely because it is not the only provision in that agreement.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has completely ignored Clause 2 (2) in his amendment, apart from the aspect that no discretion is left to the Minister. This clause reads as follows—

The hon. member has ignored that. What we desire to have here is the power also to discriminate against certain countries. The hon. member’s amendment does not deal with (c) and (d) of Clause 2 (1), as regards our exports. But the fact remains that we discriminate as regards our exports. We do not permit the export of strategic material to Russia. Discrimination is applied by us, and we require the same power to discriminate as regards our imports. We do not possess that power, but we have certain treaty obligations, e.g. with the Federation or even in regard to the High Commission Territories. There are no import restrictions from the High Commission Territories, but we do have import restrictions in regard to other countries. Therefore we are discriminating and we require that discriminatory legislation. We can enter into an agreement with the Federation whereby we impose certain limitations by means of quotas in order to protect our own industries, and then it is necessary that even if there are no currency problems, we must still have this legislation, and we must be able to act in terms of these powers if we wish to fulfil our treaty agreements. This type of trade agreement whereby imports are controlled by means of quotas is applied in many countries, however, we do not have that power and it is essential that it should be obtained.

Yesterday reference was made here to import permits, and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) in particular stated that certain firms are misusing their import permits. I put it very clearly last night that it is our policy to investigate all import permits very thoroughly to see to it that permits are only issued in so far as that firm’s bona fide requirements are concerned, and that we most strongly disapprove of trafficking in permits. Not only do we disapprove of the practice, but we have in fact employed an ex-detective chief whose work it is to investigate such complaints, and if it appears that it is abused, the permits of that firm are withdrawn. Every complaint that reaches the Department is investigated thoroughly. I told the hon. member he should give me the names of these firms that are abusing their permits, and I extend this invitation to any person in the country, to give the Department that information, and we shall take action. We had discussions last year to see what could be done to avoid abuses.

I asked the hon. member to give me the name and he furnished me with the name of a firm in Durban after the adjournment last night. I have had an opportunity of investigating the matter, and here is the information I have received from the Director of Imports and Exports in regard to that firm. He says that in the past this firm had permits in four different categories, inter alia, permits for consumer goods, and the last date of issue of a permit to that firm was 12 July 1961. The hon. member put it to me that this firm was still trafficking in permits, although it had already ceased to exist. My information is that the last permits in respect of consumer goods were issued on 12 July 1961. Last year none were issued, nor were any issued this year. As regards small tools, the last issue was in November 1960 and as regards textile piece goods, the date of the last issue is November 1961, but this permit was cancelled subsequently, and the past permit issued to the firm was in August 1961; and as regards rice, the last issue was in July 1961. He further informs me that this firm received no permits in 1962 nor in 1963. Here is the proof that after it had ceased to exist, no further permits were issued to this firm.

Reference has also been made here to new firms that are having a difficult time as the result of import control. Here also I obtained the figures, namely that in the case of new industries import facilities were granted during 1961 to 201 new firms; in 1962 to 238 new factories, and in the first quarter of 1963. they were granted to 67 new factories; and as regards traders, the position is that in 1962 150 new permits were issued and in the first quarter of 1963 90 were issued to new traders. So there is the requisite scope for people who wish to enter this field bona fide, and we try to give them a fair opportunity of doing so.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk. S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—77: Bekker, H. T. van G.: Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diedrichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander. A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever. D. J. G.: van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.: van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke. J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster. A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On New Clause to follow Clause 7,

I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman)—

1. 8. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the provisions of this Act shall lapse on 30 June 1965.
2. (2) The operation of the provisions of this Act may from time to time by resolution of the Senate and the House of Assembly be extended for a period not exceeding 12 months at a time.

In other words, the purpose of this amendment is to show clearly that the Government does not regard import control as a permanent economic measure but that they only want it for a temporary period of time. Sir, I probably cannot start off better than by reading out what was said by the present Minister of Finance in 1958 in the Budget debate. In explaining the Government’s policy with regard to import control, he said (Col. 395)—

That was the Government’s policy at the time. I do not know, of course, whether in this respect too they have completely departed from their former policy in the last four years or not, but it certainly was their policy four years ago to regard physical control of importation as a type of measure that must lead to an increase in our cost structure and that therefore it was a necessary evil to be used only in exceptional cases when it became unavoidable but that it must be got rid of as soon as possible. The hon. the Minister then went on to say—

To use his own words, I trust that the Minister will not refuse this amendment and thus admit the charge which was then made that “resort is only taken to this measure by governments who are either unable to appreciate the long-term harmful effects of quantitative restrictions on imports or who lack the courage to introduce more fundamental measures”, because I am afraid that if he refuses to accept this amendment, that will be the only inference that one will be able to draw from his refusal, namely, that he now regards import control as a permanent feature of our economic life in South Africa. The Minister went on to say—

The Minister must tell us whether he still believes that a country’s credit standing is affected by resorting to permanent import control measures: whether he believes, as the Minister of Finance did believe four years ago, that this type of measure is looked upon with disfavour by the International Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Sir, this amendment can be justified entirely by what was said four years ago by the present Minister of Finance and unless the Government has changed its policy completely in this respect I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. The Minister himself said last night, in replying to speakers on this side, that we were completely wrong in assuming that import control was going to be a permanent feature of our economic life. If that is so, then surely he can show how wrong he was by accepting our amendment. There can be no clearer proof than the acceptance of this amendment that the Government has no intention of making import control a permanent feature of our economic life. Let the Minister limit this measure to a period of two years and then come back to Parliament if circumstances still exist which make import control necessary. Sir, let us try to speculate what may possibly happen in the next two or three years. We have a very favourable balance of trade as we have had it for the past four years; there is no reason to doubt that this favourable balance of trade will persist in the future. If we follow the correct fiscal and financial policy there is no reason at all why this should not happen. Our whole problem, as far as our reserves are concerned and as far as our balance of payments is concerned, is the capital account problem—the fact that we have so much foreign money invested in South Africa which the Government is apparently afraid will be withdrawn if capital control was lifted—but we have capital control for that very purpose. Sir, we are assured daily by hon. members on the other side that the world is beginning to understand their policies and beginning to get confidence in the policies of the Nationalist Government. If that is so, surely it can only be a short time before investors will start reinvesting in South Africa. If the Government believes in its own policies and that those policies are restoring confidence in South Africa and that those policies are restoring confidence in this country in the minds of foreign investors, it can only be a question of time before we will have a big inflow of capital again instead of having an outflow of capital, because hon. members are all agreed on the exceptionally favourable investment opportunities in South Africa to-day in comparison with most other countries in the world. Given confidence there is no reason at all why we should not again have a tremendous inflow of capital into South Africa, and if that should happen, then surely there is no danger to our reserves in the future, that is to say, if the Government has confidence in its own policies. Of course, if it has no confidence in its own policies, then I can understand the measure, and that is the only basis on which I can understand it. If they have confidence in their own policies and if they have confidence that the foreign investor will start reinvesting in South Africa, then I cannot for the life of me see why they want to make this a permanent measure; why they refuse to make it a temporary measure. I think if this amendment is rejected we can justly claim that it shows a lack of confidence by the Government in their own policies, because the only circumstances which can make import control necessary as a more or less permanent feature of our economic life is the possibility of a large-scale withdrawal of foreign capital. If we have an inflow of foreign capital our reserves can only continue to mount and surely the time must come when the Government. as the result of international obligations and for sound economic reasons, in order to keep our cost structure as low as possible, will have to do away with import control. I therefore trust that the Minister will see fit at least to accept this amendment.

This amendment becomes much more important now that the first amendment of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has been rejected because the Bill as it now stands is completely wide in that it gives the Minister the power, whenever he deems it necessary or expedient in the public interest, to impose import control. In the first amendment we tried to limit it for specific reasons but that has been rejected by the Committee and we now find that the position is wide open. We feel therefore that it is necessary to place a time limit on the powers which are granted to the Minister in this particular Bill. Sir, then there is another matter. We want to be able to determine from time to time the necessity for import control rules and regulations. We believe that it is only right and proper that the Minister should come to the House from time to time and tell us why he wants to continue with import control, because we have not yet discovered the basic reasons for import control. Hon members on the other side have certainly not limited the purpose of this Bill to the question of monetary control; they have used it in a very much wider field, and we believe that it is imperative that the Government should come to the House periodically to get the approval or the rejection of the House for the continuation of these measures. But there is another aspect; we asked the Deputy Minister a number of questions last night in the second reading debate and we have had very few replies to those questions. There are numbers of aspects of import control—the way in which it is administered and its rules and regulations—which we are not happy about; and if the hon. the Minister has to come to us at the end of two years and thereafter year by year. we will have the opportunity of ascertaining the necessity for the continuance of import control and whether the rules and the regulations are in the best interests of the economy of the country. For these reasons I strongly support the amendment.

I think I can remind the Minister of a striking example we have considered in this House and that he as Minister has considered in his own Department. Some years ago we had a Select Committee which sat for three consecutive years on the very important subject of the export of canned fruit and vegetables. At that time there was a tentative agreement between South Africa and Australia on the marketing of canned fruit and vegetables in the London market. An Act was already on the Statute Book, but the Act on the Statute Book gave permission for a limited period only. We then took more drastic measures than those which have now been suggested by my hon. friend in moving the amendment; we then had the Select Committee sitting for three consecutive years. We brought out a report every year saying that the provisions should be extended for another year. But we do not ask for a Select Committee in this case. All we are asking at this stage is that after two years the hon. the Minister should come to the House and say that he wishes to extend this measure for another year and give his reasons. By a vote in the House, if necessary—I hope it will not be necessary to have a vote—it can then be extended for another year. Sir, surely this is a reasonable proposition and there is a precedent for it in the Minister’s own Department, the Department of Economic Affairs. Surely the Minister has this precedent on which he can count. I sincerely hope that he will accept this amendment because it is eminently reasonable.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) again repeated the argument he advanced yesterday and came to the conclusion that because we are coming forward with legislation, therefore import control is permanent. I have tried to explain that we are dealing with empowering legislation here. The application of it has nothing to do with the matter. In order to apply import control legislation is necessary, and because it is now done by way of regulation, that is being replaced by legislation. That is the reason for the introduction of this measure, but the hon. member insists that the mere fact that this legislation is introduced proves that import control has come to stay and will be applied permanently. Now, I have tried to explain that the one is empowering legislation; the other is policy that is applied from time to time as the circumstances require. However, the hon. member for Jeppes cannot appreciate that and I can do nothing more to convince him if he cannot understand it. The amendment asks that we should accept that this measure will remain in force for two years and that thereafter it will be reviewed. But the adoption of the amendment will mean, according to the interpretation of the Opposition that for those two years, because the legislation is there, we shall be unable to do away with import control. Even if this Act were to be valid for two years only, we may still at any time waive its application. We are now asked to show our bona fides by accepting this amendment as proof that we do not wish to apply import control permanently, but now the hon. member comes along with an unpractical amendment such as this, namely that after two years an extension of 12 months should be asked for every year. But we may arrive at a position in the future where we may not wish to apply import control any longer. Does it mean then that we shall have to come to this House every year for authority to do something we no longer have to do? Surely that is an unpractical arrangement. The fact of the matter is that it may suddenly become necessary to apply import control; circumstances may necessitate it and then we shall not have this empowering legislation. It may become necessary during the recess and then it will mean that either a special session will have to be arranged or that we shall have to wait until January or February to obtain authority for the application of import control measures. Hon. members can well appreciate what will happen then; as soon as it becomes clear that we have to apply import control, there will be a repetition of the attempt we have had before to beat the ban. That is what will happen if this legislation is not on the Statute Book. It is purely empowering and it is necessary that it should remain on the Statute Book, and it may remain on the Statute Book even if no import control is applied.

The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has said that the Opposition will not have an opportunity to discuss the need for the application of import control and the rules and regulations, as he put it, but surely that is not correct. They have the opportunity every year in the Budget debate and under the Minister’s Vote to review the policy of import control and to criticize it and ask the Minister what his plans for the future are and why he is still applying import control. They should not come forward with such an unpractical proposal as this, and then expect the Minister to accept it while they have the right and the privilege every year of discussing the import policy in this House. Therefore we are not prepared to accept this unpractical amendment.

Proposed new Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—37: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—75: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden; J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.: Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

This Bill is a very short one. I want to say that notwithstanding its brevity it is a very important Bill. I think that it is high time that we had a sound planning and streamlining of the mining of our precious minerals in South Africa for the reasons mentioned by the hon. Deputy Minister and for other reasons that I want to mention briefly. One of these is that if our base minerals are not mined this fact often hampers the mining of our precious minerals. These base minerals are found over large areas because they consist mainly of alluvial diamonds. That is why the mining of base minerals over large areas is restricted, as is to be understood. It often happens that people are aware of good base minerals in a particular area but they cannot go ahead to start mining those base minerals because those areas are regarded as protected diamond areas. Industries are also often hampered, for example, our sea industries along the west coast where diamonds are found or where there may possibly be diamond deposits. We find therefore that this often has a very hampering effect upon the development of our industries along that coastline.

We welcome the fact therefore that we have an amending Bill here to streamline that development to a certain extent. We also know that with a view to the size of the area that has to be prospected to-day and the depth at which those alluvial diamonds are found, the day of the small-scale digger has gone for good. It has become absolutely essential for those diamonds to be prospected and developed collectively by large companies which have the capital necessary to undertake this work. We know that many diamonds are to be found and that they can be mined profitably. Prospecting is often so expensive and difficult that it is almost impossible for the individual to undertake it. That is why it is so necessary for this legislation to be adopted to make provision whereby those diamond fields can be developed in a planned and streamlined manner.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said that he could not understand why the clause prescribed certain functions which could not be performed by the committee to be established while the functions to be performed by the committee were not very clearly defined. I cannot agree with him. I think that if he reads sub-section (4) carefully, he will see that those activities are defined quite clearly. That sub-section reads—

I think that this is its main purpose—to promote that prospecting. The sub-section goes on to say—

I think that the functions of these committees which will be appointed are very clearly defined. I cannot understand therefore why the hon. member does not know what their activities will be. In order to avoid any confusion, sub-section (6) provides that they will not perform any of the functions performed by a board already established. I cannot, therefore, see how the hon. member can say that the functions which they will not exercise are defined but not the functions that they will have to exercise. The Bill states clearly that they will not be able to exercise the functions of any other board but that they will have certain functions which they will have to perform on their own, and these functions are clearly defined. I really think that those functions have become very necessary.

Because to a very large extent this Bill affects areas which fall within the constituency that I represent, I want to say at the outset that there is no question of that constituency laying claim to rights within the constituency. I think that that would be very silly and unreasonable because we would then have the position where similar claims would be made in other areas where gold and so forth is discovered. I do not think that any person or group of persons in the constituency that I represent can rightly lay claim to certain concessions. But we want to urge the hon. the Minister to consider certain matters administratively in the mining of those base minerals. The first matter that I want to ask that should be considered is the general development of the area in which the diamonds are found. I think that this has become necessary because the general public in South Africa often have a wrong idea of Namaqualand. When people hear of Namaqualand they think in the first place of an area which is permanently drought-stricken. When it rains there they think of an area which has a sporadic growth of flowers, and that is when they go to look at the flowers. That is all there is to Namaqualand. Secondly, they think that Namaqualand is there for the purpose of the collection of fantastic numbers of diamonds along its coastline. I want to say immediately that both of these views are wrong. I personally think that Namaqualand is rich in diamonds and that there are certain proven and rich diamond fields. We want to ask that those diamond fields be used for the benefit of Namaqualand itself. I want to ask the Minister to instruct the committee to consider these things and that those proven diamond fields, when they are developed, will to some extent be used in developing that area and particularly for the development of its base mineral potential. There are very many base minerals to be found in that area. Some have already been proven and others have still to be proved but their traces are found throughout that large area. I feel that far too little has as yet been done to mine those base minerals and to prove their existence there. I want to say that the few people who have had the initiative, determination and faith in base minerals in that area have been very richly rewarded. I think of an undertaking like the O’Kiep Copper Mining Company which is mining copper there very successfully to-day. I think of those entrepreneurs who are mining sillimanite, which has become a very large industry there. There are other persons who are engaged in the mining of sillimanite-corundum. I feel that there are many other base minerals just waiting to be mined. I want to ask therefore that that precious potential will be considered in the granting of concessions. I also trust that the committee will ensure that these matters will be considered in setting up the companies to develop the mineral riches, if the concessions are granted to them.

I also want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister to consider another aspect. This is a very serious matter. I am referring to those people who are employed to-day on the State alluvial diggings. Hon. members must remember that those people have already earned great wealth for the State. But these people are in a peculiar position in that many of them are not qualified to compete on the open labour market. Since we now know—as the hon. the Minister has told us—that the lifespan of those alluvial State diggings is very limited, those people will create a problem once those mines cease to operate. We know that there are still a few years of prospecting remaining and it is possible that the lifespan of those mines can be increased. But we can only work upon what has been proved and it has been proved that the lifespan of these mines is not very long. For that reason we are concerned about those plus/minus 700 people, most of whom are the breadwinners of families. I want to say that between 200 and 250 of those people can be absorbed in the open labour market but the other plus/minus 500 are going to create a problem which cannot lightly be overlooked. That is why I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister that when instructions are given to that committee, he will ensure that they investigate that aspect very thoroughly so that in the composition of the various companies those people will be provided for and will be looked after.

I know that our time is limited and I want to co-operate. I want to content myself with this appeal to the hon. Deputy Minister to consider these two very important aspects when the committee proceeds with its activities.

This Bill reflects the new approach which was contained in the legislation of 1960 when we got away from the old idea that alluvial diamonds were virtually excluded from the general picture of the mineral riches of South Africa and that these diamonds were only found by individual diggers. That old idea was reflected particularly in the 1927 Act. But times have changed, important discoveries have been made, as the hon. Deputy Minister has said, and certain restrictions have been placed upon the development of alluvial diggings. The first important idea was to try and curtail prospecting and to exclude all State land. Great misuse was made by certain private companies in that they purchased very large quantities of land and excluded them from this development. I think that the first step that the State itself took was when it restricted the number of diggers’ certificates. We have reached the position where alluvial diggings as we knew them in the past will now come to an end. I think that there are still about 500 diggers who are permanently employed on alluvial diggings besides the people who still have certificates which they cannot actually use. They are waiting for some proclamation or other to enable them to use those certificates. But I think that the people who have to make their living on the alluvial diggings number about 500 the vast majority of whom are in the Cape Province and in the Transvaal.

This new idea has brought us to a new stage. By imposing restrictions in the past vast riches were left undeveloped and future development was restricted. I think that it was because of this fact that South Africa lost her position in the world market to some extent. Where previously we produced 60 per cent of the world’s diamonds, that percentage is much smaller to-day. As we know, about 150 diamond mines have been discovered in the country of which only 25 are at present being developed. By this new method of restriction we have greatly restricted the development of the mineral riches of South Africa. That is why we welcome this step that the State is now taking to make this State land available even though it is only being made available to companies. On the other hand, however, the ordinary diggers of whom, as I said, there are still about 500, expect a certain amount of assistance. Their claims have been exhausted and the recent proclamation has caused much dissatisfaction. Because those people are dependent upon digging for their livelihood, they look to the State to take certain precautionary measures to assist them.

Because most of the State land is in Namaqualand, we realize that it will be undesirable to release that land. We also feel that measures must be taken in to safeguard those people in some or the other way. I think that they are trying to raise the necessary capital amongst themselves to form companies. I hope that where these companies will be allowed to develop this State land, those diggers who have been diggers all their lives will be considered for employment by the companies.

I hope that this new development will be forthcoming and will be extended so that this period during which new certificates will no longer be issued will shortly come to an end. We will in future have to take certain steps further to develop these tremendous riches of South Africa to the benefit of the whole country.

I move—

I second. Agreed to.

Orders of the Day Nos. X, XI and XII to stand over.

The various amendments which appear on the Order Paper in the name of hon. members on this side of the House have already been disposed of except one, and that is the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Gorshel which I now move—

Provided that the person who is to hold the inquiry shall have the power to postpone the inquiry on good cause shown.

This amendment relates to Clause 17 (9) (a) which I should just like to read out—

It is clear what he has to do there-—

As a practical solution for what I regard as a defect here, I now propose to add—

This Clause does not make provision for the postponement of the inquiry in unavoidable circumstances, and it is to cover this that we are proposing this proviso. This is not a matter of principle and my amendment is motivated purely by practical reasons. I trust therefore that the hon. the Minister will accept this practical suggestion.

I hope the hon. member will give me a little more time. I am not at all unwilling to meet him. However, I do not know what the circumstances will be that will be different in practice from the powers that are already possessed by the Secretary to postpone an inquiry. Surely that person who is deputed to hold an inquiry is deputed by the Secretary to do so. The Secretary has the power to postpone any inquiry.

Under which clause does he have the power to postpone the inquiry?

Let me say this first of all: I have accepted an amendment by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) to the effect that the Secretary may postpone it for three months instead of 12 months.

That is his report.

But he may also postpone the inquiry. If the hon. member will give me the time, I shall indicate the clause to him. I do not have it before me exactly at the moment. But the Secretary does have the power to effect a postponement. This person is the nominee of the Secretary.

I am in a position to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) that I think I was correct in saying that the secretary has the right to postpone it, although that right is not specifically granted to him in the Act. He also has a second right, and that is that after a charge has been laid, he may charge a person, but he is not compelled to do so and he may also at any time withdraw the charge if new facts come to his attention. I have however already told the hon. member that I am not unwilling to consider his suggestion, and if the hon. member will propose the amendment in the following form—

I shall be prepared to accept it.

Quite correct.

The amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp was, with leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

I move—

In discussing Clause 17, we find repeated throughout the clause that the officer wielding authority is “the Secretary”. When we discussed Clause 2, I pointed out to the hon. the Minister, through you, Sir, that instead of defining the officer loosely in this way. he should define him as “the head of the Disivion of Education, who shall be an officer who has expert knowledge of education matters”. When it comes to applying disciplinary regulations, we find throughout the Bill that the important officer is the Secretary. I appealed to the Minister and said that in every Education Department, every Provincial Department and every other Department we have heard of, there is a professional officer at the head who is called “Director” or “Superintendent”. I asked why the hon. the Minister did not accept that tradition. Strangely enough this week I received a publication from his own Department called “Alpha”. This is an educational publication, described in this way “an education journal published on behalf of the Department of Coloured Affairs by the Department of Information”, and in this journal there is a picture of an officer who is described as “the Director of Education”. This is exactly what I have been asking for. We have here the Secretary of Coloured Affairs who is the head of the Department as the Provincial Secretary is the head of his Department, and we have a Director of Education corresponding to the Superintendent of Education in the Cape and the Director in the Transvaal or Natal or the Free State. Why do we not make him the officer wielding authority? Why do we say throughout Clause 17 that “the Secretary will carry out an investigation”. The Secretary of the Department is an administrative officer, but the man to do this should be a professional officer, and the professional officer is the Director. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that throughout Clause 17 the word “secretary” should be omitted and replaced by the word “Director”, as I appealed to him in connection with Clause 2. It should be the Director who carries out the investigation and it is the Director to whom all reports should be made. He should decide whether there should be an investigation. What on earth has the Secretary of Coloured Affairs got to do with the offences of a teacher? If a teacher has been “looking on the wine while it is ruddy”, or “loving not wisely but too well”. that is not a matter to be investigated by the Secretary, or the head of the Department. I appeal to the hon. Minister to be reasonable and try to give us a good organization of this Department. I therefore move—

I regret I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. I have already explained to the hon. member on a previous occasion what has happened, and I shall now try to explain it as fully as possible. When the person concerned was appointed in the Department. he was appointed at the time on the assumption that he would be called “Director”. That was the original assumption, but for very good reasons, after consultation with the Public Service Commission, it was decided to designate the person concerned who was to become the head of the Division of Education. as “Deputy Secretary”, and so the designation “Director” then fell away. That is the history briefly, and I need not go into it any further. Now the hon. member should not hold me responsible for what appears in a newspaper under a photo. Any such mistake can crop up. This decision was taken after consultation with the Public Service Commission. There is a Deputy Secretary (Administrative) in the Department, but there is also a Deputy Secretary who will be in charge of the Education Division, but it is not a separate Department of Education as yet. It may come to that, but do not let us anticipate things, and because it is a sub-department of a big Department of State, you have to refer to the head of the Department in your legislation, in the same way that you from time to time mention the Minister, and everybody who knows something about administration, knows that the Minister is not going to do all these things that are provided for in the Act. There are powers to delegate, and what will happen here now is that the Secretary will delegate some of his powers to the Deputy Secretary. But that is the form in which legislation is couched and we cannot supersede the departmental chief here. That is why I cannot accept the amendment.

I have another suggestion to make which I hope the hon. the Minister will accept. I will put it in the form of an amendment and I move—

Sub-section (23) (b) says that when a teacher has to be punished … (b) he can be fined by a fine not exceeding R400”. That is a lot of money for a teacher. And how is it to be collected? Look at (25) (b) which says that if a fine is imposed in terms of this sub-section, such fine may be recovered by deducting it from his emoluments in such instalments as the Minister may determine. Mr. Chairman, I think it is wrong, it is iniquitous, to fine a teacher up to R400 and deduct it from his salary. I can understand the punishment where he may be transferred to another post. I can understand him losing in grade. I can understand his status being affected, but that a Coloured teacher with his scale of salary should be fined in this way is unjust and unjustifiable.

Only if he does something wrong.

Assuming he does, he should be punished inside the Department through his conditions of service, but without taking his money. You do not do that to a soldier. The commanding officer may not do that to a soldier. It is a very serious thing to take a man’s pay, and I appeal to the hon. the Minister to delete this provision. There are many things that can be done to a teacher under this clause: He can be transferred, he can be reduced in status, he can be cautioned and reprimanded, and if he is cautioned and reprimanded that goes against him in his record. Those are the things that can happen. But to say that the man is to be fined up to R400, I think is iniquitous.

I regret that I cannot accept the amendment, but after consultation with the Education Committee of the Union Coloured Council, I am prepared to move the following amendment myself—

Clause 17 deals in general terms with the procedure to be followed in cases of misconduct in relation to any teacher who falls under the provisions of this Bill. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed by teachers’ organizations in regard to the fact that there is not any explicit provision in this Bill except for sub-section (11), a provision whereby anyone charged with misconduct should have the right to avail himself of legal representation at all stages of the proceedings against him. It is true that under sub-section 11 (a) the Bill makes provision that at the inquiry the person charged may be present, shall have the right to be heard and to cross-examine any person called as a witness in support of the charge, to inspect any documents produced in evidence and to call other persons as witnesses, either personally or by a representative, and he may give evidence himself. Now it is felt that there is no explicit provision which enables a teacher charged under this Bill to be represented by legal representation at all stages of the case which is being brought against him. I have been specifically asked by the Educational and Professional Association of the Teachers, who have also presented to the hon. the Minister and his Department a memorandum in relation to this Bill, to draw attention specifically to this clause. In dealing with sub-section (11) of Clause 17 they asked that there should be a very explicit provision for a teacher who is charged with misconduct to avail himself of legal representation at all stages. I am sure that that probably is the intention of the hon. Minister, and if the hon. Minister can state that what is intended is that a man should have the right at all stages to have legal representation …

That is how I understand it.

It is very vague, but if the hon. the Minister gives us that assurance here, I think it will satisfy these people.

Yes.

Whilst I am on my feet, I have been asked also to deal with another provision of this clause; the provision which has just been dealt with by the hon. the Minister in the amendment that he has proposed to reduce the fine from R400 to R200. It is suggested by this body, Sir, that unless the committee that is set up to deal with a charge of misconduct is presided over by at least a magistrate, it should not have the power to impose a fine. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has given any consideration to that representation, and I put it to the hon. the Minister. But the first one is most important that there should be an understanding that anyone charged under the provisions of this clause should have the right to have legal representation at all stages of the inquiry.

I wish to refer to subsection (27) of Clause 17. That sub-section deals with the case of a man who is charged with misconduct and resigns before the completion of the inquiry, and then it goes on to say that if he does resign before the completion of the inquiry, he will nevertheless be regarded as having been discharged from the service. I think that that is quite wrong. I know that in other public bodies where people are charged with a specific offence and who feel that they are not guilty, often do not want to go through the whole procedure of an inquiry, and then they say “I would rather resign; I do not want to have anything to do with the service which has charged me with an offence of which I am not guilty; nor do I want to go through the procedure of an inquiry; I would rather resign”. I say that such a person should be able to resign without a stigma being attached to him. which flows from this sub-section, namely that the man will nevertheless be discharged. In other words, a man resigns and when he goes to the next employer, he should be able to say “I have resigned from the service”, but this Bill now will add a stigma which will affect him and his future because he is discharged, without his case having been investigated. It does not say that nevertheless the allegation shall be followed up and finally decided by a court of inquiry or by the officer in charge. No, it says: When you resign, you will be discharged, even although there is no finality in respect of the charge made against this man. I think it is quite wrong and I ask the hon. the Minister to consider the withdrawal of that subsection, or to amend it in such a way that any person shall have the right to resign if charged, and that there will then be no further action taken against him.

Question put: That the word “Secretary” where it occurs for the first time in line 7, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, which was affirmed, and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Moore dropped.

The amendment proposed by Mr. Hourquebie and the first amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman were put and negatived.

The amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp was put and agreed to.

The second amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman and the second amendment proposed by Mr. Moore were put and negatived.

The amendment proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs and the amendment proposed by Mr. D. E. Mitchell were put and agreed to.

The remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Moore and the remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Plewman were put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 18,

I move the following amendment—

This particular clause deals with what will happen when steps have to be taken against anybody who is charged with misconduct under a previous clause this committee has already approved. As it stands, it says “if it is alleged”. One asks oneself immediately who will be the one to make the allegation. If there is an allegation, by whom is it made? One would like to see that if such an allegation is made, anyone who charges the male or a female teacher concerned at a Coloured school with misconduct, should make such allegation under oath. For if the clause remains in its present form, it means that any story that comes to the attention of the Secretary, any malicious gossip, will have to be followed up. This clause opens the gate wide to gossips who have the slightest idea that a teacher (male or female) has misconducted himself or herself in terms of the description of misconduct in Clause 17 or Clause 16.

You are wrong.

I do not need the assistance of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark (Dr. de Wet) who knows nothing about this legislation. Indeed, he knows nothing about the Coloureds in our country. I shall be more inclined to listen to the hon. the Minister who, I think, is trying to look after the interests of the Coloureds in South Africa.

The amendment we are proposing from this side of the House is that we wish to protect the esprit de corps, the good spirit, that may prevail in any school, and we wish to protect the teaching staff. So whenever there is any suspicion of malicious gossip against a male or a female teacher, before any steps are taken, the person who makes such allegations should do so under oath. The second part of my amendment is that not just any person in the Department will be able to do so, and that we should omit that portion, but that it should be an inspector of the Department. In other words, it will be somebody who is familiar with the circumstances in the division of education of the Department of Coloured Affairs, a man who is familiar with the circumstances at a particular school, and who will deal with this kind of case in an extremely sympathetic manner. For that reason we are proposing this amendment. I repeat that the hon. the Minister is concerned here with a group of people, namely teaching personnel among the Coloureds who have to be dealt with in a most sympathetic manner. In the Cape Provincial Council we have laid down a lengthy procedure that has to be followed in respect of White teachers when anybody is suspected of misconduct. Copies of the record of the case in which such a person was convicted, etc. must be lodged with the Department. But here it says “if it is alleged”. We consider that the clause provides far too much scope for the creation of suspicion, merely because somebody thinks that a male or a female teacher has misconducted himself or herself in some way. If hon. members will once again look at the clause in regard to misconduct, they will find for instance in Clause 16 (d) the words “he is negligent or indolent in the discharge of his duties” and “disobeys, disregards or makes wilful default in carrying out a lawful order given to him by a person having authority to give it”. Those are the forms of misconduct that are “alleged” under this Clause 18 in question. I think it is outrageous to permit anybody just to make such allegations lightly. No, he ought to make those allegations under oath only. For this kind of inquiry does not remain a secret. When it is alleged that somebody has misconducted himself, the procedure in practice will probably be that an official will go to such a school and say to Mr. A or Mrs. X “You have misconducted yourself in one way or another Such a person may be found not guilty, but the stigma is there immediately, and Clause 18 simply makes it much too easy for anybody to allege that a male or female teacher has misconducted himself or herself.

Where do you find the word “misconduct”?

Did the hon. member not read the clause under discussion? It says: “If it is alleged that any person referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 15 is unfit for or …

“unfit for”.

Yes, but now you have to read Clause 15. This clause reads as follows—(if any person) “subject to the provisions of Section 18, on account of unfitness for his duties or incapacity to perform them efficiently and “(f) subject to the provisions of Section 17 on account of misconduct as defined in Section 16.” …

I as a simple little farmer now have to teach the hon. member for Ceres who is a lawyer the law. (Laughter.) I have to help him not only to read a clause as it stands there now, but also to refer back, for that Clause 18 refers to Clause 15. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member is wrong and he should apologize to the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller). This clause deals with incompetent persons. It does not deal with the persons who are guilty of misconduct under the other clause; it deals with incompetency. The hon. member will just have to accept it like that. The marginal note makes it very clear that it deals only with incompetency.

That hon. member is incompetent.

You can have two kinds of persons. You can have a member of the teaching staff, and you can have a member of the non-teaching staff. If it is a member of the teaching staff it seems to me that it obviously follows that you will select somebody who is competent to make an inquiry, namely an inspector. But when you are dealing with a member of the non-teaching staff, you will use a different official and not an inspector. But the hon. member should really leave a little to the imagination of a competent Department of State. South Africa is proud of its Public Service, and we need not cast a reflection upon them in our legislation. I am not saying the hon. member does that, but we may do so by implication if we prescribe every trivial detail when a Department of State has to make an inquiry. Throughout the Public Service inquiries are taking place daily, and we have to leave it to the good judgment and common sense of the authorities concerned. I am sorry I cannot accept it.

I am afraid that we have too much confidence perhaps in mankind. [Interjection.] I do not regard the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) as a human being!

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

And I am not part of the clause.

Thank goodness for that! When a person alleges that a teacher is incapable it means that that person is an outsider and one ought not to take any notice of what he says, but the clause says that if it is alleged that any person is unsuitable for the duties attached to his post, etc., the Secretary may do certain things. I admit that it does not say that the Secretary “shall But the Secretary may place that teacher in a very unfavourable position and cause him harm by instituting such an inquiry or causing it to be instituted.

If he acts irresponsibly, yes.

But one does find irresponsible people. I feel therefore that this is a reasonable amendment because if a person alleges that a teacher is unsuitable for his post, it is a serious matter. It may result in his discharge. The allegation may be based on idle gossip and it may be that the person making the allegation does not like the teacher in question. I feel therefore that there can be no harm in saying that that allegation must be made on oath. If he knows that the man is unsuitable let him say so on oath. If I felt that a teacher was incapable I would be prepared to say so on oath. But it is wrong simply to make wild allegations that a person is incapable; such allegations may have detrimental effects upon the teacher concerned. The second part of the amendment does not derogate from the Minister’s clause. It simply asks that we should appoint a person like an inspector who has the necessary experience. I take it that that is what the Secretary will do, if he is a responsible person, and that is why we ask that it be inserted in the Act. I wonder therefore whether the Minister will not reconsider the position. He himself says that the Secretary will appoint the right person but my personal and most serious objection is to the fact that wild allegations may be made against the person, and we say that that can be avoided by saying that such allegations must be made on oath.

The first amendment was put and the Committee divided:

AYES—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock. H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.: Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

NOES—58: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee. P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel. G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Remaining amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

AYES—58: Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Muller, S. L.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—36: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Odell, H. G. O.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Russell, J. H.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. Ο. N.; Timoney, H. M.; van der Byl, P.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to On Clause 19.

Mr. Chairman, this clause makes provision whereby a teacher employed in any school shall place the whole of his time at the disposal of the school in which he is employed. I want to say immediately that there is nothing unreasonable in that provision. The clause goes on to say that such a teacher shall not without the permission of the Secretary bind himself to perform other remunerative work, and if he does so he shall not have the right to claim such remuneration for the duties performed by him, and if he does, he may be compelled to pay the money into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I want to say immediately that I am fully conscious of the fact that almost similar provisions apply to White teachers in the service of the Provincial Administration. They cannot engage in other remunerative services without the permission of the head of their department. But there is a great distinction between the White teachers of this province and the Coloured teachers. I do not at this stage wish to deal with that distinction, but the hon. the Minister is aware that there exists a great discrimination in wages between White and Coloured teachers. We have been told that that wide gap will be lessened as time goes on, but the fact remains that there is still that discrimination in the wage scales and in the circumstances it is absolutely essential for these Coloured teachers, in order to eke out an existence, to do private work beyond their school hours. I personally know of many of them who are obliged to teach privately after hours, in order to supplement their meagre earnings. We know of many of them who work as waiters during the week-ends or during the evenings. Many of them take part in theatrical productions for remuneration. There are several Coloured teachers who take part for remuneration in the productions of the Eoan Group and many of them play in orchestras, etc. It is necessary for them to do so in order to supplement their meagre earnings. As this provision stands now, they will not be allowed to do this and retain that additional remuneration without the permission of the Secretary or some person authorized by him. I think this is an appropriate time for us to ask the hon. the Minister to say publicly what his policy will be in regard to this matter, and I hope that he will be able to tell this Committee that it will be the policy of his Department by way of an instruction to the Secretary to ensure that these people who genuinely wish to perform the services I have described or similar services for remuneration in order to supplement their earnings will be allowed to do so. I think the Minister should make a public statement in that regard, because it will allay a great deal of fear existing in the minds of these teachers. Again, in a memorandum presented by the Teachers Educational Professional Association to the hon. the Minister dealing with this clause, that organization says this: “It should be possible for a teacher to receive other remuneration than from the Department provided such duties as those for which he is remunerated do not hamper his functions as a teacher.” I think that should be the basic principle to which the Minister should give effect. I hope that the Minister will avail himself of the opportunity to make a public statement which will allay the fears in the minds of many teachers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg), but instead of simply wanting an assurance from the Minister I want to move an amendment to bring this into line with the existing Education Ordinance. I see no reason whatever why such a clause relating to the performance of duties other than teaching duties should not be worded in exactly the same way as in the existing Education Ordinance. I therefore want to move—

This brings it into line with the existing provisions of the Cape Education Ordinance, and I want to remind the Minister that Coloured teachers were given the assurance that when the Coloured Affairs Department took over Coloured education the conditions of service would be no less favourable than the existing conditions of service under the province. Therefore I wish to move that this clause be reworded to bring it into line with the Education Ordinance.

I think the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) will agree with me that as the clause stands here, it is possible to apply it fairly, in such a way that teachers will not be unduly restricted. Nor is it our intention to deprive teachers of the privilege or the right to participate in work that is available and of which he has mentioned a few examples. I can see no objection to the participation of teachers in those undertakings. I think that is the spirit in which the clause will be applied. But I do think that we should at all costs guard against teachers abusing their position. The Coloured people in particular need it very much that their teachers should take much more interest in their community, more than is shown in many instances at the present time, and the hon. member is aware of it. I am not saying this as an insult to the Coloured teachers, but I think much more interest could be shown by Coloured teachers in what is happening in and around their school in the interests of their community. What this clause will prohibit e.g. is that a teacher will be permitted to concern himself with liquor licences, etc., when he should be looking after the interests of his school. I think the clause as it stands has been drafted quite fairly, and the teachers will be granted the requisite permission. It could be provided, by a general rule that is laid down beforehand, that teachers need not apply for such and such work. That could be done in the regulations. So I do not propose to accept the amendment, because this clause has been drafted in this manner after very careful consideration in order to be fair to every teacher. I believe for instance that teachers should be permitted to participate as much as possible in the community life of their people. The hon. member has rpentioned the Eoan group. There can be no reason why teachers cannot participate in the performances of that group, for it promotes their cultural interests. But within the provisions of this clause steps can be taken in all fairness and I can see no reason for an amendment.

I think there is another manner in which the hon. the Minister might perhaps approach this. Sometimes it is possible to lay down a fixed number of hours per week during which a member of the teaching profession employed by the Department can engage in other work. The usual time is “not exceeding six hours”. Should a teacher be told that he may not have six hours but must confine himself to his work only, it is a suggestion that he is not carrying out his own work as efficiently as he should. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider whether he could have a flat period of six hours. Those of us who have had experience of rural conditions throughout the country have learnt from experience that some of our teachers have been very efficient farmers in their spare time, and not only that, but they have given a lead to the farming community as well. I do not think we should curb the teacher’s desire to earn more money in some other form of employment. I suggest that the Minister should give careful consideration to a fixed maximum period of six hours, which he could reduce if necessary. I do not think we should say to a member of any profession that he may not engage in any other work outside his profession.

I listened very attentively to the hon. the Minister and I think that the guarantee that he gave us is a good one; it is something that we can support and that we welcome. I wonder why the hon. the Minister cannot accept the Cape Ordinance as it reads to-day.

Because we are not dealing here with provincial teachers only. Other teachers are also involved.

But the people with whom the Minister has to deal are nevertheless still teachers. It does not matter in what type of school the teacher is. I appreciate what the Minister said, namely that if they wish to do extra-mural work, they must obtain the permission of the Department. In the days when we were teachers we usually received that permission if the Superintendent was satisfied that our extra-mural activities would not interfere with our duties as teachers. That is why I prefer the Cape Education Ordinance.

It is stated here that—

That is more or less in accordance with the spirit in which the hon. member for Houghton moved her amendment. A provision such as this would satisfy the teachers.

Can you give me an example as to the sort of thing that you have in mind with which we will not be able to deal in terms of this clause?

Would a teacher be able to write an article in the Banier with regard to educational matters, for example?

We have established an educational magazine which they will now have for the first time.

I am not talking about that particular magazine or any educational magazine. I am talking about Die Banier, that is to say, the magazine for our Coloured population in general. If a teacher writes an article in Die Banier, not with the object of violating the laws of the country—that is something that we could deal with in any event under the existing laws—for which he is paid….

Subject to the provisions of the other clauses of this Bill he can write about anything.

But he may also be paid for the article, and apart from that the Minister may also say, for example, that he does not like the idea of the teacher in question writing such articles. We found the other day that Adam Small’s work was criticized in the Other Place. In the same way the Minister may say to somebody else who writes an article in Die Banier that he, the Minister, does not like the article because it is in conflict with the writer’s duties or his profession as a teacher. Section 154 of the Ordinance is a well-considered section. It has stood for years and it says perfectly clearly that the necessary permission will be given to a teacher in all cases where his extra-mural activities will not encroach upon his duties as teacher. If the Minister can give us the undertaking that he will make provision for this in his regulations, then we can think about it again, although I want to ask him at the same time why he refuses to make provision for this in the Bill itself. Why does he not follow the lines of the Ordinance? We have the same provision in Natal that they have here in the Cape.

I have already explained that in drafting this Bill we had to try to embody in it everything contained in the Special Education Act, the Vocational Education Act and in the four various ordinances. We had to find a way in which to give expression to the spirit of all this legislation, because not only is this new legislation but it is also consolidating legislation. As I say, in drafting this Bill we had to bear in mind all the provisions of the Acts and ordinances to which I have referred.

What did you take as the basis? The Cape Ordinance?

Wait a minute. I have already stated that when it comes to disciplinary steps I prefer the Natal Education Ordinance. Already in regard to a previous clause we adopted the course followed by Natal. On this specific point the Natal Education Ordinance says this. Unless his conditions of appointment provide otherwise, every teacher will put all his time at the disposal of the Department; no teacher may without the consent of the Director perform remunerative work outside of the service of the Department, or bind himself to do so; no teacher can demand as of right to receive extra remuneration in respect of duties or work falling outside the curriculum which is expected of him by a competent authority.

But Natal had a good ordinance!

Of course it is a good ordinance. It sets a very good example to us.

You should have followed that ordinance throughout.

But that is what I am trying to do, and in spite of that I am being criticized!

No, it is not the same.

I am not saying it is the same word for word, but the spirit is the same, except that in my opinion the Natal Education Ordinance is worded even more strongly. The hon. member for Hillbrow mentioned as an example an article written by a teacher in Die Banier which I might not like. But good heavens, I have enough work to do without concerning myself with that! Therefore I said by way of interjection that apart from the other provisions of this Bill in regard to a prohibition of specific matters, a teacher can write what he likes as long as he keeps within the laws of the land. If he has the approval of the Secretary to take part in matters and he receives remuneration for it, there is nothing wrong with that. I want to give the hon. member an example to show that we do not leave it at words only. The Government has already in my Department appointed the ex-Secretary of that Department to devote special attention to the cultural life of the Coloured population. Will we now on the one hand be making an appointment of that nature, whilst on the other hand subjecting the teacher to such restrictions?

Will Dr. van der Ross be able to write to the Cape Times about a matter?

Of course. What concern is it of mine if he wants to write to the Cape Times? As long as he just stays within the law. I regret that I cannot accept this amendment.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (5) In the exercise of any of the powers conferred on him by this section the Minister shall not depart from the regulations and syllabuses governing courses for the education and training of White persons.

The reason for this amendment is that I should like to ensure that the Minister will not devise new syllabuses particularly designed for the Coloured people and their education. I am not one who believes in ethnic groupings as far as education is concerned, or as far as anything else is concerned, for that matter. I believe that as a result of the application of a particular type of education to the Bantu people, they have suffered. The standard of their education has gone down, so much so that they are no longer as fit to continue as they were before, in training for university courses. Consequently, I am reluctant to see the same thing being done to the Coloured people, and accordingly I should like to ensure that the Minister will not devise special syllabuses for them. I have good reason to believe that he is thinking of doing exactly that because of the fact that he has stated so in public. I have already quoted what he said and do not want to quote his statement in detail again. He said, in short, that certain types of education would be more beneficial to the Coloured people than reaching the matric standard and wandering in the streets as he put it, with their matric certificates in their hands. It is not clear to the Minister that there is another alternative, namely the creation of opportunities for educated and trained Coloured people so as to enable them to take up skilled occupations, and to remove all job reservation restrictions. That is the alternative which is open to the Minister if he wants to avoid Coloured people walking the streets clutching their matric certificates.

I move as an amendment—

The hon. the Minister earlier on said that we could have the greatest confidence in the Department of Education. Arts and Science but by leaving in the words I should like to see omitted, there will be a certain limitation of its powers. The Minister is the person who will determine the courses of education; he will determine the life of the Department; and he will determine any alteration in the direction the education for Coloured people is to take. I think that there is enough confidence in the Department of Education, Arts and Science and in the provincial councils and their work for us to allow them to carry on doing what is set out in this paragraph (4). I do not think, therefore, that it is necessary for the Minister to interfere with their powers at all. As a matter of fact, I should like the Minister to tell us why he considers it necessary to determine otherwise. What possible set of circumstances can arise to justify him altering the course of the education of the Coloured people? These are interesting aspects of the matter. I feel that we should continue to show confidence in the Department of Education. Arts and Science. The Minister, on the other hand, should busy himself with other work rather than interfere in this respect. The Minister should tell us whether he prefers to have uniformity or whether he will take it upon himself to direct the work of these various councils.

If the Minister accepts the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton, he will also be compelled to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The amendment of the hon. member for Houghton boils down to this, that in Coloured education there will be no deviation from the curriculum for Whites. In other words, there will still always be four departments for primary education plus the education which to-day falls under the Central Government. The hon. member for Rosettenville asks that the drawing up of the curricula and the examinations should remain in the hands of the provinces. At least, that is what it amounts to. If that is so, the Minister will never be able to co-ordinate the various curricula unless he does so through the National Education Advisory Council.

We foresee the day when the Department of Coloured Affairs will have its own Department of Coloured Education. Surely then there must be uniformity between the four provinces. If these two amendments are accepted, it completely excludes the possibility of having a separate Department of Coloured Education.

There is just one other remark I wish to make, in regard to the hon. member for Houghton. I do not know why for the umpteenth time this Session she considered it necessary to refer to Bantu education and to say that it was inferior. That simply is not true. Her allegation that the standard of Bantu education has fallen to such an extent that the students can no longer adapt themselves to the universities or high schools is absolute nonsense.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) for the speech which he has just made. If there is one person on the other side from whom one could expect a measure of support for the attitude of this side in respect of the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Rosettenville, it is the hon. member for Prieska. He ought to know because he is a person with years of experience as an educationist. He talks about uniformity, but that is precisely what we seek to achieve with this amendment. We want to try to maintain uniformity by leaving education in the hands of one body, in the hands of the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

But that is not the position. Read the amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville.

As far as examinations, curricula, etc., are concerned, there will be uniformity in terms of the proposal of the hon. member for Rosettenville, whether the person be White, Black or Coloured. His education will remain in the hands of the same body, namely the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I have often said before, and it is perfectly true—no educationist can quarrel with me about it or deny it—that education remains education, whether it be for Yellow, White or Coloured people or for Greeks or for Romans. Education remains education; the principles remain the same, and those are the principles that we want to be applied also to the Coloureds. To that extent I agree with the hon. member for Houghton when she says that education for the Coloured should be the same as the education for the Whites.

The main principle underlying our amendment is that all education should be controlled by a central body—all the arrangements in that connection. We have even gone further on this side by saying that not only the education of the Coloured, the Asiatic and the White child should fundamentally be the same and that it should also be the same for the Bantu, founded on his own cultural background, but also that all education should be correlated through one channel. In present-day circumstances and in the light of legislation which has already been passed, we have no alternative but to accept that that central controlling body must be the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

It will take the Minister years—he will admit that that is so—to build up his own full-fledged Department and if he refuses to accept our amendment I hope that for many years to come he will still rely on the advice of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This Department should fulfil a cohesive and correlating function. As far as we are concerned it is a matter of principle and we should like to hear the Minister’s views.

Before the Minister stands up to reply, I should like to express to him the hope that he will accept the amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Houghton as well as the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosettenville. What has been the fundamental objection on the part of the Coloured people to this Bill? This is a simple one: They express the fear that under this Bill they will be receiving no education but “Coloured” education. That is their basic fear. Here is an opportunity for the Minister to allay that fear. In effect the hon. member for Houghton is asking the Minister to adhere to the syllabuses and the regulations governing courses of education for Whites. Here then is the opportunity for the Minister to say that the Government intends giving to the Coloured people the same standard of education as is available to the White people of this country. I can see no reason at all why the hon. the Minister should reject this proposal. We have been given the assurance many times from the other side, inter alia by the hon. member for Prieska in his second-reading speech, that it was the definite intention of the Government to give to the Coloured people the same standard of education as was being given to the Whites.

That is still the case.

If that is so, then I cannot see any reason why the Minister should not accept this amendment. At any rate, I suggest that he gives this amendment his most serious consideration.

The hon. member for Houghton has been going around now for a few months with a cutting in her handbag from which she quotes every now and again to illustrate what I was supposed to have said at Springbok. The fact is that she does not have the vaguest idea of what I did say there. She quotes from a newspaper report which must obviously be condensed and incomplete. Why does she not quote from what I said in my reply to the second-reading debate on this Bill? I want to quote to her from my reply. Then she will see that what she quoted was a very small portion of what I said in my reply. I have the full notes of my reply here and this is what I said—

Has the hon. member for Houghton any objection to this?

No, none at all.

I went on to say—

That is what I said amongst other things in my reply to the debate. I quote this in order to show that if the hon. member for Houghton wanted to be fair, she could also have quoted it. But no. She resorts to a condensed and incomplete newspaper report in order to serve her own petty ends. What is this petty aim she has? I want to tell hon. members what it is. It is that she wants to awaken the suspicion mentioned by the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). She wants to further encourage that suspicion; she wants to create the impression on the part of the Coloured people that what we are doing here is nothing less than giving them inferior education. That is her object and nothing else. That is why I do not want to pursue this matter any further. I am not prepared to accept her amendment because I cannot allow myself to be bound by the curricula of four different provinces. I cannot allow myself to be bound permanently in that way. Once we have consulted all the interested bodies, if we can come forward with an educational arrangement of a high standard then we will carry it through. And so I cannot allow myself to be hobbled by legislation which is aimed at making that impossible.

This also holds good for the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). I cannot accept the principle of divided control because the aim of this legislation is amongst other things to eliminate that very thing. On the other hand, the hon. member is trying to perpetuate it. That is why I cannot accept the two amendments.

The hon. member for Peninsula asked for certain assurances but of what help will such assurances be? If they are given, will they be conveyed to the Coloured people? Or must we struggle every day of our lives with prejudices that are created in the minds of the Coloured people? That is why I say that we cannot give any assurances. All that we can say is that people should visit the institutions falling under the Department. Let them visit Porter, let them visit Ottery, let them visit the institutions at Faure, let them visit the University College and tell us if these institutions are inferior. If they cannot prove it, they must stop spreading the lie that we are driven by diabolical motives.

The hon. the Minister has ascribed motives to me when I quoted what he said. On the first occasion he omitted the last three words of his own speech. That did appear not only in the English translation of his speech in Hansard, but also in the original Afrikaans version. Those were three very important words.

They have nothing to do with the statement I made.

I am just saying that there are two occasions on which the Minister accused me of distorting what he said and ascribed base motives to me. I am trying to show him that on both occasions he was wrong. On the first occasion he said that I was quoting from the translated version of his speech in Hansard while all the time the original Hansard version of his speech in fact contained those very words which he omitted when he read his speech.

Those words were not part of my statement. I read out a statement and then I said that the apartheid institution to which people were referring, the Department of Coloured Affairs …

Well, I do not want to read the speech of the Minister again, but if he reads it he will see that he said that teachers should not take their cheques from “this apartheid institution”. Those were his exact words.

At any rate, the Minister certainly said more in his second-reading speech than he said when he was speaking—and no doubt swept away by political considerations—in Namaqualand. He was busy assuring the White residents there that they need have no fear that their interests would not be handled judiciously when it came to appropriating developed areas as a result of the Orange River project. I have no doubt that the Minister, talking to White constituents in that area, placed a different emphasis on what he was going to do …

I was opening a congress and not addressing constituents. You are talking through your neck again.

Order, order!

The point I want to make is that the Minister, when talking to the White residents in the area who will no doubt take part in an election sooner or later, used rather different language and placed a different emphasis on things. The Minister has not denied the words which were reported by the Argus on 24 November 1962. Now he is not prepared to give any assurance to the Coloured people—they must simply come and see what his Department is doing for them. But I want to point out to him that he did give assurances to the Coloured people; so did the Secretary of his Department, and the Prime Minister, to the effect that when legislation was going to be introduced to take over Coloured education certain specific principles would be adhered to, i.e. that existing standards would be maintained, conditions of service would remain the same, etc. But this has not happened. When we look at this Bill we see that that has not been done. In some very important respects those assurances were not carried out.

The Minister knows that this Bill of his is going to apply largely to the Cape Province. There will, therefore, be no necessity to take into consideration the other provinces. If he wants me to do so I can add that to my amendment so that he need not be faced with conflicting educational facilities as they exist in the Transvaal or in Natal or in the Cape. I am prepared, since this is largely education for the Coloured people in the Cape and only to a minor extent comparatively, for the Coloured people in Natal or in the Transvaal, to add “White persons in the Cape Province” if that will solve the Minister’s difficulties. In fact. Sir, I now move as an added amendment to my amendment—

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that I am considering this matter perfectly calmly and that I am approaching it as objectively as possible and certainly from the educational angle as far as possible. I do not want to make any accusations. I do not want to suggest that the education of the Coloured population is going to be inferior; I do not want to suggest that it is going to be better than the education of the Whites. But what I do say to the hon. Minister is that no matter how many statements he may make, such statements do not form part of the law and can never form part of the law.

There is one thing which I was pleased to hear this evening from his own lips and that is his condemnation of divided control in education. That is precisely what we want to obviate by means of our amendment. It is precisely that divided control that we have so strenuously opposed in this Parliament in the past five or six years.

But you have four provinces controlling education.

But in general it is the same. I am not talking about the four Administrations in the various provinces and the various rights which have been given to them. [Interjections.] The fragmentation law is already on the Statute Book and I am precluded from discussing it here again. This Bill has been accepted in principle and I can no longer quarrel with it, but what I do say, Mr. Chairman, is that if I am able to maintain uniformity then I must do so, even under this principle of divided control introduced by this Government.

[Inaudible.]

I asked my hon. friend a moment ago to stand up, and, with his knowledge of the Coloureds, to tell us something instructive. I should like to learn from him; I mean that. We are dealing here with a serious educational matter; it is not a frivolous matter; we are dealing here with the future of people, with the future of a large section of our South African population. We should like to give them what we want to give ourselves. One of the methods by which we can do so is the proposal of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Steenkamp) that the control, the correlation, etc., should remain in the hands of our central body, the Department of Education, Arts and Science. My hon. friend over there says that that is not what is stated here. May I read it out to him? It seems to me that he has not read the Bill carefully. In Clause 21 (4) it is stated—

Read on.

My hon. friend has not read this clause carefully. That is what we are asking for in spirit. Instead of its being taken over by the Minister later on to conduct the examinations and to set the curricula, we ask that it should remain …

Read further.

It will not change the position even if I do read on. I do not want to waste the time of this House. I challenge my hon. friend to prove in what way it will change the position if I read further. [Interjections.] I could read out the whole of the clause but I would only be wasting time.

Order! Hon. members will have an opportunity of replying to the hon. member in a moment.

All that we are asking for in essence is that the Minister must not come along later on and “determine” differently, but that we should retain the necessary uniformity through the Department of Education, Arts and Science. We ask that as far as practicable we should have and retain uniformity in this country. Both the hon. the Minister and my hon. friend supported me by speaking against this fragmentation.

Read further.

Let my hon. friend stand up and make a speech; I should like to hear him. I should like to hear what he can teach me with regard to this matter. I should like to hear it because I regard this as a serious matter. I repeat that here we are dealing with the education of people, people who may either suffer under this measure or derive some benefit from it. If I can help to improve this legislation I shall do so in all sincerity. We want to try to improve the measure. I think the hon. the Minister will admit that we are not being frivolous in discussing this matter and that we do speak with a certain amount of knowledge. The number of amendments that we have moved from this side of the House proves that we have studied this matter.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) refused to quote the whole of this paragraph. He argued that they did not want divided control and in an attempt to prove that he read out the first half of the paragraph. Their amendment amounts to this, that the first half of the paragraph must remain as it stands here and that the power which is given to the Minister here to amend it at some later stage must be removed from the paragraph. That is quite understandable. But I want to draw the attention of the hon. member to that portion of the paragraph which he refused to read out and which in fact contains a provision for the greatest measure of divided control that he has probably ever seen, divided control over education not only as between Government Departments or as between the Provincial Administration on the one hand and a Government Department on the other, but as between a Government Department and four different Provincial Administrations. This part of the paragraph reads as follows—

In other words, it is not only the Department of Education. Arts and Science but four Provincial Administrations. That is the divided control that we speak about which will exist in terms of this particular clause and which the hon. the Minister intends to amend at a later stage if circumstances justify it. That is why the hon. member did not want to read it out. He based his argument on the removal of divided control but that is precisely what the hon. the Minister has in mind. That is precisely what the hon. member seeks to remove from the power of the Minister. The words that they want to delete are “Until the Minister otherwise determines”. If they remove those words the divided control in terms of this paragraph will be perpetuated while if the Minister has this power in the future it will eventually be possible to remove that divided control which the hon. member himself does not want.

I really do feel that the hon. members opposite, particularly the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), are trying to create the impression outside of this House by means of their arguments that it is our intention to give the Coloured people inferior education. They are trying to create the suspicion in the minds of the Coloured people that their education will be inferior. In doing so they are not helping the Coloureds or the country; they are doing the country a great disservice. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton does not provide that the education provided to the Coloureds will not be inferior education. All that she asks is that there must be no departure from the regulations and syllabuses governing courses for the education and training of White persons. The Department must be in a position to draw up syllabuses for the Coloured people which are far better suited to their circumstances and which in fact should mean superior education for the Coloureds. And her amendment prevents that. In other words, if her amendment is adopted it will mean that we shall not be able to give better or superior education to the Coloureds. I am in favour of leaving the administration and the curricula in the hands of the responsible educationists because by so doing education will be given to the Coloureds which will best suit them, not inferior education but education that will be in the best interests of the Coloureds.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) should have continued reading and then we would have had a clear picture. But he stopped where it was convenient for him to stop. It says plainly in Clause 21 (4) that the work shall be done by the provinces—

It does not mean that there will be division and separation of the Department’s work.

As it would have been had it still been under the Provincial Administration.

Exactly, Sir. It means that there will not be differentiation. It will be done exactly the same way. Nobody can blame this side of the House if we want to see the best for the Coloured people. I for one am not suspicious but I want to make sure that everything that is good in education shall be offered to all people in the country irrespective of their colour. If there are people who are suspicious, if there are people who think that inferior education is going to be offered surely they are entitled to safeguards and assurances. The Minister says that we must take his word for it. Why cannot he then at the same time implement his assurances in the Act? There is nothing wrong with that. I accept the Minister’s word that the best will be given but why does he not put it in this Bill? Why does he not accept the amendment that we have moved from this side? No, Sir, this clause has apparently to be left open in such a way that the Minister will be able from time to time alter the courses of education and the personnel who are carrying out the education. As I said earlier on, he can limit the activities of the Department of Education, Arts and Science; he can limit the life of that Department. All we are asking is for an assurance in writing that this will not take place.

I just want to give the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) the assurance that it is not a question of any suspicion on this side of the House. I am bringing to the attention of this Committee the genuine fears that exist in the minds of a number of Coloured educationists about the type of education the Coloured people are going to get under this Bill and under the new Department. Those are genuine fears and if we can allay those fears by giving them the assurances which the hon. the Minister has not given them up to now I think he will be doing a great deal in bringing about a greater measure of goodwill from the people upon whose goodwill the success of this measure will depend. The success of this kind of education will depend upon the measure of goodwill that we shall get from the Coloured teachers in this Province. We want to allay the fears that they have as far as possible.

I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s point when, in reply to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and supported by me, he said that he was in this difficult position that he did not want to accept an amendment which would in fact tie his hands to regulations and syllabuses which applied to four different provinces in respect of White people and which were in many instances different from province to province. I can understand that. I know the hon. member for Houghton has changed her amendment by restricting the regulations and the syllabuses to the courses applicable to White persons in the Cape Province. I want to try to meet the hon. the Minister’s objection again in relation to his objection to being bound to the regulations and syllabuses even of the Cape Province. He does not want to be bound by that; he regards that as a separate department. I want to meet that objection and I now want to move this further amendment which I hope the Minister will accept because this does not tie him to any specific regulation or syllabus. It merely has the effect of putting on record his intention to maintain the same standard of education as is applicable to the White people. I move the following—

1. (5) In the exercise of the powers conferred on him by this section, the Minister shall maintain the standard of education and training of White persons in the Cape Province.

I cannot possibly see what objection the hon. the Minister can have to this amendment. This merely puts on record that in giving effect to the vast powers that we are conferring upon the hon. the Minister he shall maintain the standard of education and training of White persons in the Cape Province. He is not bound to any existing regulations; he can make his own regulations; he can introduce his own new syllabuses; he can do whatever he pleases as long as he carries out the assurance which he himself has given on numerous occasions to the Coloured people that he will endeavour to maintain the same standard of education and training as is applicable to the White people in this Province. I do urge upon the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment, because this amendment of mine clears the air and puts on record what the hon. the Minister himself has expressed as being his intention.

I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment. In spite of any misuse that may be made of my refusal I want to say that this is not the first suggestion of this nature that has been made to me. Other bodies have also made similar suggestions to me—to give a guarantee that the education and training of the Coloured people will be of the same standard as that given to the Whites. If this principle is applied in all its facets it will of course be to the detriment of the Coloured people. I hone the hon. member appreciates that fact. I will tell hon. members why this is so. Large numbers of the Coloured teachers do not have the same standard of education and training as the Whites. We are also taking over the Coloured colleges. I want to ask the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) to think very carefully about the implications of his suggestion. This thing can be used very conveniently for other purposes—for example to say that the Minister refuses to accent equal standards. But if it is written into the law and I apply it. hundreds of Coloured teachers will suffer [Interjections]. Surely that is perfectly clear. There are numbers of Coloured teachers who have Std. 8 and who are teaching to-day. Does the hon. member not know that? He is a sort of expert on matters affecting the Coloureds but apparently he does not know this. I say, Mr. Chairman, that if those words are inserted here we will not only not be acting in the interests of the Coloured people but to their detriment if those words are strictly applied. That is why I am not prepared to walk into a trap of this nature in spite of the propaganda that may be made out of it by some hon. members opposite.

I have seldom seen anyone trying as hard as the hon. the Minister has just done to put up a smokescreen. He represents himself as the great protector of the poor Coloured teacher who has not had a very high standard of training. This amendment of the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) plus the amendment of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) does not affect the Coloured teacher who has already received his training.

I was speaking about the implications of the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg).

What does the amendment of the hon. member for Peninsula amount to? It amounts to this, that in the future the syllabuses for the training of Coloured teachers will conform to those drawn up for the Whites. How can this have any effect upon those people who have already been trained? The only purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in the future the training that these people receive will be the same as that received by the Whites. The hon. member for Peninsula nods in agreement. He agrees with me regarding the implications of his amendment. But the hon. the Minister says that the hon. member for Peninsula is being unjust towards the poor Coloured teacher who has not had that training. I want to put this question to the hon. the Minister; Does he foresee a time when the training of the Coloured teachers, both male and female, and the syllabus that is drawn up for the Coloured child will be the same as that of the Whites?

Of course.

The hon. the Minister agrees. He foresees the time when that will be the position but he does not want to accept our amendment to write that into the law! He says he foresees the time when that will be the case.

This is not the time now.

There we have it, Mr. Chairman! When the hon. member for De Aar-Colesberg (Mr. M. J. de la R. Venter) participates in a debate or makes an interjection, he usually puts his foot into it. He has just said that this is not the time now. We are all prepared to give the Coloureds the greatest measure of development and training that it is possible for us to give them. I think we also accept that they are the partners of the Whites who are the bearers of Western civilization. I think we all agree that in the course of time their education will be precisely the same as that of the Whites. All that this side of the House is asking is that efforts should be made to make the syllabuses and the courses which are drawn up for them precisely the same as those of the Whites.

You are talking now about content and not about quality.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) now says that it is not the content … (Laughter). The hon. member says that we must not worry about the quality (Laughter). What must we worry about, then?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth West (Mr. Streicher) is now dealing with content. He wants …

Order! The hon. member may ask a question if he wishes to do so.

Whether we are dealing with quality or content, the standard of Coloured education must be the same as that of the Whites and the content of the education of the Coloured child must also be the same as that of the White child. That is my answer to the hon. member. Let me say this: The hon. member for Prieska is an ex-inspector of schools. The attitude was that Coloured education in the Cape should be precisely the same as that of the Whites. Let the hon. the Minister deny that. Whether it be the quality or the content, it had to be precisely the same, including the examinations which those people have had to write up to the present. And what are we asking now? Nothing more than that. All we want to prevent the hon. the Minister from doing is to give the Coloured child in the Cape something rather less than he has been receiving up to the present; in other words, something less than he has been receiving in comparison with the White child in the Cape.

There is one fact that we must not lose sight of in this House and that is that Coloured education has always been in the hands of the Whites, even under the province, whether hon. members prefer the Cape Ordinance or not. The fact is that under that Ordinance Coloured education was under the control of the Whites. What is more, it was under the control of Whites who were appointed by this National Party Government. The fact is that hon. members opposite want to create the impression in the minds of the Coloured people that this Government wants to do them an injustice right from the start. I cannot but gain that impression.

Let me ask this question: How did this Cape Ordinance come into being, this Ordinance which hon. members praised so highly for the Whites? Mr. Chairman, this Ordinance was built up slowly and painfully from 1910. Hon. members should peruse that Ordinance of 1910. I believe that as far as education is concerned, any community or any group must receive only what it deserves. As far as its education is concerned, as far as its educational institutions are concerned, a community gets what it deserves. We Afrikaners have had experience of that. We experienced it the hard way. Hon. members opposite now ask something for the Coloureds that was dearly earned and built up gradually for the Whites. I do not want to enter into an argument as to whether it is a good thing or not. I contend that the curricula introduced under the 1957 Cape Ordinance would not have been a good thing for the South Africa of 1910 because those curricula would not have suited the South Africa of 1910; they would not have suited the Whites of 1910. We have to deal with practical facts. No matter what hon. members opposite may say, as far as education is concerned the Coloureds are definitely not on the same level of development as the Whites. No matter how one may try to argue, the Coloureds have not reached that stage. This Bill we have before us has in mind for Coloured education something that it has never had before. This education has always been in the hands of the White man. It has been the White man who has had to prescribe for the Coloured. But this Bill envisages an eventual Coloured inspectorate. Why should we write everything into this Bill in 1963 when Coloured education is being taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs; why do we not give Coloured educationists the opportunity to contribute something as well? Hon. members opposite cannot get away from the fact that the Department of Coloured Affairs has already revealed its goodwill towards the Coloureds. They cannot produce facts to show that any injustice has been done to Coloured teachers by the Department.