Mr. Speaker, by your leave, I want to make the following statement: The closing of the border and the stopping of commercial traffic between Rhodesia and Mozambique cause certain immediate problems for both countries and will in due course leave gaps and require adaptations not only for these two countries, but also for quite a number of other countries in Southern Africa, including Zaïre and South Africa.

South Africa adheres to its standpoint that boycotts and the closing of borders do not provide any solution to political disputes and far from solving problems rather have the potential of accentuating points of difference, with the danger of causing an escalation to something much more serious and of being the spark which will cause the smouldering fires of friction to flare up, to the detriment of all those involved or nearby. It is even more so in the case of countries which are economically inter-dependent and in which the economy is at once mutually affected and harmed. I believe that it is irresponsible for countries, especially those far away, to stir up such action.

Unfortunately these conditions are aggravated by sensational reporting, sometimes based on misunderstanding, which foments further discord and gives rise to panic.

The greatest immediate need of developing countries, especially those most seriously affected in recent times by war, violence, economic depression and declining export prices, in contrast with rising import prices, is to provide employment, to obtain and produce food and to combat poverty.

So far South Africa has not been directly affected by the events, and it is still too early to determine the precise effect of the action taken, but the situation is and remains one which can have distressing consequences, and every further development will have to be carefully evaluated and every step to protect the interests of South Africa and its peoples will have to be taken with calm deliberation.

Apart from the danger inherent in the situation itself, the Russian and Cuban presence in Southern Africa is an aggravating factor, especially in view of the Russian policy and tactics to exploit such situations to their own advantage and to achieve their well-known aim of world domination.

The Government is constantly giving attention to the matter and I shall keep the House informed as often as may be necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to certain remarks which I made during the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I should like to say that it was not my intention to reflect in any way on the hon. member for Johannesburg North, and I trust that this explanation is acceptable.

We gave the Bill our blessing at the Second Reading, and dealt with it at length. I shall therefore be brief in dealing with this particular clause. This clause will make it very much easier for a purchaser to obtain transfer, by merely paying the transfer costs for the intermediary. This clause is very important in that it allows the purchaser thereafter to recover all the costs which he expended on behalf of the intermediary. We welcome the clause and agree that a purchaser should be entitled to recoup all the money he expends on behalf of an intermediary. With those few words I want to say that we accept this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Walmer in regard to the withdrawal of the allegation against the hon. member for Johannesburg North. May I, in the same spirit, say that what I said concerning the hon. member for Walmer looking into his own conscience was not, as I said at the time, intended to impute any dishonesty to the hon. member or to reflect on his integrity.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the amendments which are contained in the Bill and which are now to be approved by this House at the Third Reading, will in effect smooth out many of the legal disabilities in land sales on the instalment system. As I said during the Second Reading debate, we believe that almost every South African who has his roots deeply in the soil of South Africa will benefit from the passing of this Bill. We believe, too, that we should tell the hon. the Minister that we appreciated the spirit in which he has brought this Bill forward, a Bill which contains amendments which have been discussed a year ago during the debate on the principal Act. We believe that further difficulties may arise in the application of the principal Act. We merely ask the hon. the Minister to accept that we appreciate his undertaking that, in the event of further amendments becoming necessary, he will bring the matter again to the House. We give him the undertaking that we shall consider them in the same spirit.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, as indicated during the Second Reading debate of this Bill, we of the official Opposition are not happy about the extension the hon. the Minister now asks for to the powers he wishes to give not only to the Price Controller, but also to any price control supervisor or inspector. Section 13 of the Act provides for the powers price control supervisors and inspectors shall have in the carrying out of their duties, in the carrying out of their functions under this Act. At the moment it reads—

exercise certain powers. We have no objection to these at all. We have no objection to the inspectors and supervisors and to the Price Controller himself having all these powers with regard to the administration of the Act. As long as he is investigating “whether the provisions of this Act or any notice issued” in terms of this Act have been complied with, we have no objection at all.

However, what is the effect of the amendment the hon. the Minister now introduces? The inspectors or supervisors, in addition to having the power to investigate whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with, now have powers—

There is no limit whatsoever to what may now be investigated. There is no limit at all; it is entirely at the whim of the controller. It is for that reason that I indicated that we would move an amendment at this stage of the debate on this Bill. I now move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, indicated that he felt these words were meaningless. I wish to put it to him, and to the Committee, that the effect of the addition of these words will be that an inspector or supervisor shall only have the powers provided in section 13 of the Act, when he investigates whether the provisions of the Act have been complied with, whether the provisions of any notice, issued thereunder, have been complied with and for the purpose of gathering information which may be directly relevant to the objects of this Act. I believe that this meets the requirements of the hon. the Minister. He told us that he requires this power so that he can investigate whether or not he should in fact control the selling price of a commodity or service. I believe that this amendment will meet his object without widening the powers of the controller which he can pass on to an inspector or a supervisor to investigate, to such an extent that they become entirely unlimited, according to the amendment which he has moved. I know the hon. the Minister intimated to me yesterday that he had a compromise amendment which he thought he might move today, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would indicate to the Committee whether it is his intention to do so and if so, what exactly that compromise amendment is.

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that I cannot understand the spirit of the argument of the hon. member. I want to maintain that the section, if amended as proposed here, will not have the wide scope which he believes it will have, because the amendment which we are now proposing to effect to the principal Act, does not give the Price Controller and inspectors absolute powers to obtain any information. The limit to which they may in fact ask and obtain is to be found in the object of the Act. It is obvious that any information which the inspectors may request must be relevant to achieving the objects of the Act, as they are defined in the long title of the Act, in other words, an Act to provide for the control of prices and other incidental matters. The hon. member will understand that circumstances may exist where a particular notice has not been issued in terms of the Act, or when a particular directive or provision of the Act itself is not relevant, but when my department has to determine for good reasons whether circumstances are in fact, prevailing by which they should be guided to make a recommendation to the Government that price control be applied as an example. For that purpose and in order to motivate that decision it is necessary that they obtain certain information which is not relevant to an existing provision of the Act or notice. Such a notice may in fact follow after the information has been obtained. I shall try to illustrate this with a practical example. A particular commodity is not subject to price control, in other words there is no notice making it subject to price control. Now, I need information in order to determine whether reasons do exist for making it subject to price control. This is relevant to achieving the objects of the Act. Then my inspectors should have the right to obtain that information. The limits are inherent in the Act itself. Even the wording of the amendment moved by the hon. member does not render the provision interpretable, and I want to give the hon. member an undertaking, and that is that we need the amendment in order to apply the Act and the notices issued in terms of the Act. I maintain that his amendment is not necessary for this reason. I give him the undertaking that we shall not go beyond this.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clear way in which the hon. the Minister has explained the situation. I do not wholly agree with his interpretation, but I accept his undertaking in the spirit in which he gives it and with the permission of this Committee I will withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Clause 4 amends the section which provides that the controller may grant exemptions to certain people and certain categories of people in respect of certain goods under certain circumstances. This is a provision which I believe has worked quite well in the past in the application of this particular Act. For some reason or the other, however, the hon. the Minister has now come to the conclusion that he requires additional powers. The additional powers that he asks for will allow him to grant a general exemption in respect of certain categories of persons, whereas in the past an exemption has been granted only on a specific application by a person. He may also grant exemption from the provisions of any notice published or given under this Act, in terms of section 9 which we have amended previously. We have no objection whatsoever to those particular provisions.

As far as the second half of this particular clause is concerned, the controller has in the past been able, without assigning any reason, to withdraw any such exemption. Inherent in that was the understanding that an aggrieved person or the person concerned would at least have the right to be heard in the matter in which he was personally involved. I stress the fact that at that stage exemptions were granted only to individuals on specific applications; they were not granted generally to a category of persons. We find that with this amendment to include categories of persons, we have the situation that the Minister now asks that the controller, shall not be required to assign any reason—and that matter unfortunately is not for discussion before this Committee this afternoon—but also that he may, without giving any hearing to the person or persons concerned, withdraw the exemption or modify or alter it as he may think fit. We submit that this is entirely against the principles of democratic justice as we know it in this country. We believe that a person who is directly concerned should be given the opportunity of being heard. A member yesterday made the point in the Second Reading that somebody might have based a whole business on an exemption granted by the controller and may find overnight, without being given an opportunity to put his case, that he will be out of business because the controller has decided to withdraw that exemption. I do not believe that an exemption is going to be withdrawn at the whim of the controller, or on impulse or as a matter of extreme urgency. I believe that the act of withdrawing or amending an exemption will only be done after long and careful thought by the controller. For that reason I believe that there is no urgency and that the person concerned or the category of persons concerned should be given an opportunity at least of placing their views before the controller for his consideration before he makes such a decision.

Sir, it is for that reason that I move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which reads as follows—

1. (1) On page 5, in lines 30 and 31, to omit “and without giving any hearing to the person or persons concerned”;
2. (2) on page 5, in line 34, after “exemption” to add:

What do I ask that the controller should do? In practice I believe that what will happen is that the controller, for whatever reason, may consider that an exemption should be withdrawn or amended. But while he is investigating the matter, he should inform the person concerned. If it is a specific exemption to an individual, it is simply a matter of writing a letter. If it is to a category of persons, it calls for a simple notice in the Gazette, notifying the persons concerned that they shall within a specified period, advise the Price Controller of any representations that they wish to make if they wish the exemption to be reconsidered.

I do not believe that it is necessary, with the amendment that I have moved, that there should be a hearing, that there should be time consumed, that it will be necessary for the applicant to be represented, or anything of that sort. All I ask, is that the person or persons directly concerned should be given an opportunity of stating their side of the case.

They did so when the exemptions were granted. I submit that an exemption would not have been granted had they not made representations requesting that it be granted. I believe it is only fair and just that they should similarly be given the opportunity of stating why the exemption should continue, when it is intended to alter that exemption in one way or another.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with much of what has been said by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. The hon. the Minister said in his reply to the Second Reading debate, in relation to the amendment which I put on the Order Paper yesterday, that they would do this as a matter of practice. I assume therefore that he meant the Price Controller or those deputed by him.

Mr. Chairman, I now move the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper and which reads as follows:

This amendment, broadly speaking, is very similar to the one moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I am sorry to say that, with the best will in the world, for the hon. the Minister to say that they will do this as a matter of practice, simply does not give the confidence which is required in relation to the wording of paragraph (b) of section 15 where it is specifically stated that without assigning any reason and without giving any hearing to the person or persons concerned, the controller can withdraw an exemption. Can the hon. the Minister give us one example—and possibly, to give us on this side of the House more confidence, give us three or four examples—of a situation where it would be fair and equitable to withdraw such an exemption or to modify it without in any way giving the other parties concerned, parties that will inevitably come from the private sector, the right to represent their side of the case or to put a case before the hon. the Minister as to why he should not do so immediately? We put the case to the hon. the Minister last night that if he should publish a number of exemptions in the Gazette, on whatever conditions, people will naturally go into the business on the basis of what is published in the Gazette under the exemption and the conditions that apply to it. Therefore, for the hon. the Minister to take upon himself, or to give to the Price Controller, the right to simply modify or withdraw totally those exemptions from people who have spent time, trouble and money, and may be employing a number of other people in the business concerned, without giving any reason and without granting any representation, is to our mind intolerable. Therefore we shall stand by our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe the amendments which were moved by the hon. members for Pietermaritzburg South and Johannesburg North have essentially one thing in common, and that is to give affected persons the opportunity to state their case. It seems to me that that is the essence of what the hon. members wish to achieve, in spite of any differences in terminology. Let me say at once, in all fairness, that as a theoretical statement, one might be able to think of arguments for this point of view. But let us consider the Act as it stands at present, and especially section 15, which I now propose should be amended. We then find in the section that the Price Controller may from time to time, by way of notice in the Government Gazette and with the authorization of the Minister and subject to certain conditions, exempt a person from the provisions of the Act without notice. Therefore he is already able to do it. What I am proposing in clause 4, is in fact to rectify a legal uncertainty which exists with regard to whether the Price Controller is allowed to exempt a certain person or group of persons from a notice in terms of the Act. The Price Controller has, in terms of the present Act, the authorization to exempt a person from the provisions of the Act, and the authorization which is now being requested, is that he should in principle have the same right to exempt a person from a notice which he has issued in terms of the Act. [Interjections.] Just a moment, please. But if we were now to introduce this principle which hon. members are requesting throughout the entire Act, we would have to argue that all steps which the Price Controller takes and which affect people’s rights may only be taken after he has given them the right to state their case. In all fairness, all I am trying to do, is to give the Act practical meaning and not merely a theoretical application of these principles. Now I want to ask hon. members to take a look at the Act. In terms of section 4 of the Act the Price Controller may, without consultation and without giving people a hearing, determine the prices of their products. He may do so already, and hon. members have no objection to it.

That is not relevant now.

It is relevant. I am discussing section 4 of the Act at the moment. Naturally I have to argue about the object of the Act when I explain its individual sections. I am telling you now that the Price Controller may exempt people from the provisions of the Act. All I am asking for now, is that he should also be able to exempt certain groups in respect of a notice which he himself has issued in terms of the Act. The argument was advanced that one should not make decisions which affect the rights of people without giving them a hearing. That is the essence of what both members are requesting of me. Theoretically speaking the Price Controller has the power, in terms of section 4 and section 5 of the present Act, to take decisions and act against the interests of people without giving them a hearing. By way of analogy I should like to point out that there was no objection when the Act was introduced to this specific procedure. Nor was there any member who alleged in this House that the Price Controller had abused his powers, and his powers are unlimited in this sense that he does not have to consult people.

Nobody said that.

Well, it is a fact. Therefore, in spite of the fact that consultation does not need to take place, there is nevertheless a continuous process of consultation. Those steps I am able to take, have much more drastic effect on people than the exemption from provisions or the exemption from notices, for we must remember that notices in respect of which exemption has been granted are notices which could have been issued without consultation within the powers of the Act. From 1964 up to the present time the record of the Price Controller in this regard testifies, in my opinion, to the fact that he consulted affected people under all circumstances under which he took or intended to take action. The object of the Act is to protect people against exploitation and exploiters, and therefore we cannot be so sophisticated as to give people unlimited time to have a hearing. Therefore I am unable to accept the amendments. But that does not mean, implicitly or directly, that the rights of people are recklessly being disregarded because it is not provided in the Act that they should be consulted. I would in any case be unable to apply these amendments in practice, for what is a “reasonable time” for consultation? The court would want to know that from me. A notice is not consultation, because I have to issue a notice in any case. However, it is not consultation. Therefore not one of the amendments is acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, it is no good the hon. the Minister arguing that this power is already embodied in another section. He is simply amending section 15 by saying “… without giving a hearing to the person or persons concerned …". I would assume that his department has some reason for doing this, and that reason must arise out of an instance where they wish to have this power. All that we are saying is that we are left with no confidence in this measure unless the hon. the Minister can give us an instance where this power is reasonably required. This the hon. the Minister has failed to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I am really sorry to hear how the hon. the Minister has argued this matter. He says that the rights of persons will not be recklessly prejudiced. But we have never alleged that that would happen. Neither have we alleged that this has happened in the past and I certainly do not allege that it will happen in the future. But we have always had in this country the principle of audi alteram partem. In a case like this—and the hon. the Minister has not refuted it—I do not foresee any urgency anyway, in any case not urgency of such a degree that the decision may not be delayed for five or ten days while the person concerned is given an opportunity to put his case. I do not believe that we can lightly this afternoon throw aside that legal principle, the principle which we have always stood by, of letting an accused or affected person have his say. The hon. the Minister has referred to section 4 and other sections of the Act in terms of which, he says, the Price Controller can act without consultation. I agree with him; those provisions are there. He goes further, however and says that what I am proposing now means that the Price Controller will have to consult persons before he takes any action concerning any other provisions in this Act. I am sorry, but that is not the way to read this at all.

I am referring specifically to certain rights here, and let us have a look and see what those rights are. The hon. the Minister referred to section 4 of the Act, a section which provides that the Price Controller may fix maximum prices or charges. He can do so without consultation. That is fine, since he is affecting the rights that people have obtained in general terms. However, in section 15, as it is to be amended, we are dealing with a specific right granted by the Price Controller in terms of this section, but, to repeat what I said earlier, it is granted only after representations have been made, after the persons concerned have been heard. I submit that it is only just that such a person should be given the right to state his case before those rights are taken away, reduced or in any way modified or amended—even if they are to be increased.

Concerning the amendment exempting any person from any provision, notice or order issued under this Act, we are in agreement with the hon. the Minister. We agree that he needs that power and that there have been problems in this regard. We agree that this will remove any further doubt on this score. However, I do want to plead with him to reconsider his attitude towards this amendment. I believe that this amendment, if accepted, is going to mean an infringement on the rights of the people of this country. We do not in any way wish to hamper the Price Controller in his job. He has a job of work to do, and particularly at the present time it is a most important job, an essential job, certainly in respect of the confidence of the public in this country. We do not wish to hamper him in any way. Indeed, we wish to assist him. But I do not believe he will be hampered in any way by this amendment which I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, let me try again. In terms of the existing Act, the Price Controller may take certain steps which affect the rights of people, may he not?

General rights.

If general rights are affected, individual rights are naturally affected as well.

Yes, but not specific rights.

As I have said, in terms of the Act as it stands, the Price Controller may take certain steps, and by way of notice he can make certain decisions compulsory for people. He can do that at present. Secondly, the provisions of the Act relate to certain actions of people. Section 15, as it stands, is meant to exempt people from the provisions of the Act without consultation. The legal uncertainty which exists at the moment, is whether the Price Controller may exempt people from a notice which he has served on them without consultation. In other words, he has served the notice which affects their rights on them without consultation in accordance with the Act. We submit that legal uncertainty exists over whether he may exempt a person or a group of persons from that notice without consultation. That is what is stated in the Bill.

I am honestly unable to understand the arguments of the hon. members. Let me mention an example, as the hon. member for Johannesburg North wants me to do. Let us say that, when exemption was granted in a certain case, a condition for that exemption was imposed and that people or groups of people did not comply with the condition of the exemption in that they failed to submit certain information where that was one of the conditions. It should then be possible to repeal that exemption. The hon. member wants consultation to take place. But let us consider how such an amendment would work in practice. Surely hon. members will understand that, when it is requested in an amendment that I should consult people, I cannot simply leave it at general consultation—the hon. members must tell me how I should consult in terms of the Act. Otherwise we have to attach our own interpretation to “consultation”. “Consultation” does not only mean notice in a newspaper or in the Gazette—it means more than that. I should like to say again that the wording of the amendments moved by the hon. members, does not comply with the circumstances they are envisaging.

Assist us with that then.

Just give me a chance. I shall give you another undertaking. I am unable to accept these amendments, because they would frustrate the purposes of the Act completely. I often have to act without having time to consult. If the Act then states that I have to consult, I am unable to act. This happens very frequently—hon. members need only come and sit in my office. I do not want to debate that now, because I shall have to take out certain aspects, and I do not think it is fair. I am prepared to consider the essence of what the hon. members advocated. The fact of the matter is, in all fairness, that not one of the provisions of the Act as it stands at the moment, requires consultation. Yet none of the provisions are applied without consultation, if it is in any way possible. Everybody agrees with that, also the private sector—the people who are affected by this. I repeat: Let me consider this facet; if abuses should arise—I am making no apology for this at all—I would be the first one who would come to this House and say: “We have to amend the Act in such a way that it makes provision for that abuse”. However, hon. members should not attempt to restrict me in this way when I wish to protect people against the small number of exploiters in the business world. I cannot be hampered in my work in that way.

Amendment (1) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived and amendment moved by Mr. G. H. Waddell dropped (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment (2) moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause provides for the registration of establishments, and paragraph (f) of subsection (1) provided that there may be recorded in the register—

In subsections (2) and (3) provision is being made for the particulars which appear in the register to be made known generally and to be available. I should like to have the assurance that the registrar would not want information to be recorded in the register which could possibly fall into the hands of competitors of such an establishment and could thus hamper the business. I am asking for this assurance on behalf of members of the industry.

Mr. Chairman, I refer the hon. member to clause 30(2) in which, to my mind, a certain amount of protection is already inherent. It is certainly not the intention to make confidential information which is asked for, available to the public. I can give the hon. member that assurance.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the industry I would like to comment on this clause, which also concerns the registration of an establishment. When an establishment is registered there could be particulars which are in fact of general interest to industry as a whole. Therefore, in this respect my comment differs from that I made on clause 4. I should like to know whether any steps are being envisaged to make available such information to industry in general. Therefore, at the registration of an establishment, are steps being envisaged to make known in the form of some advertisement or other information which is important to industry as a whole?

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this clause are contained in the Seeds Act, which is being substituted now, as well as in the Agricultural Pests Act. Therefore, the provisions exist in legislation which is already on the Statute Book. Under the Seeds Act, a seed dealer, cleaner and packer is registered as a person and not as an establishment. On the other hand, a nursery is registered as an establishment. In terms of the amendment contained in the clause everyone will be registered as establishments. Therefore, I do not believe the hon. member need be concerned about this.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps did not understand me clearly. The industry would like to know whether steps are being envisaged so that when an establishment is registered and there is any information which is in the public interest and in the interest of industry as a whole, the registration of the establishment and information pertaining to the registration, could be published in the Government Gazette or other magazines for the information of industry as a whole. Where an establishment is registered and it is of importance to the industry, would industry as a whole know of the registration?

Mr. Chairman, that will not be the case, but through the registers it is made known and consequently made available to the industry by those means.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, this clause concerns the renewal of registration and it appears that subsection (2)(d) contains a new provision, because it reads—

Is this something which is not taken into consideration at the initial registration? It is after all the case that when a first registration takes place, there are certain requirements which have to be met, but when a registration is renewed, there are apparently additional requirements which have to be met. The provisions of subsection (2)(d) to my mind contain an additional requirement in that the ability of the owner or person in control of the establishment has to comply with certain requirements.

Mr. Chairman, the provisions which the hon. member refers to, correspond with an established practice. The only difference is that the provisions are now embodied in the Act, while they were previously contained in the regulations. Essentially, therefore, there is no difference to what happens in practice.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

Mr. Chairman, this clause concerns the termination of registration. The circumstances under which this may happen and other related matters, are set out in the clause. However, it seems that no provision is made for a warning to be issued to an establishment should it be envisaged to take steps against it. Would it not have been more just towards an establishment, should it in any way have failed to comply with the provisions of the Act, to issue a reasonable warning to it before steps are taken against it and its registration is terminated?

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if the hon. member for Bryanston is particularly cautious of people who are not completely honest. I would like to give the hon. member the assurance that we do this kind of thing quite easily in agricultural circles because we have confidence in one another, no matter whether it is the dealer, farmer, or official. I do not think the hon. member need to be afraid that someone would not have discussed the matter with the person concerned should steps of this nature be contemplated. It is our normal practice to discuss matters with one another in order to have détente in agriculture. I do not think the hon. member should try to introduce mistrust into the agricultural industry in this way.

Mr. Chairman, I am in no way trying to express any mistrust in the agricultural industry or in officials of the Department of Agriculture and thus sowing suspicion against anyone. I am prepared to accept the assurance given by the hon. the Minister. However, I also feel it would be advisable to include a provision of that nature in the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if it should become necessary and the hon. member were to bring us proof that it was in fact necessary, we would be prepared to effect the amendment.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, in clause 17, which deals with the requirements for the recognition of a variety, the following appears on page 16 in subsection (3)(d)—

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister in all earnest. Could the hon. the Deputy Minister give me an example of a denomination of a plant variety—or examples if he is in a position to suggest many examples—which would be inimical to public order? Perhaps it would be even more interesting if the hon. the Deputy Minister could quote to us examples of denominations of plant varieties which would be contrary to morality. I should very much like to hear of some.

Mr. Chairman, I shall come back on the agricultural section again. We all believe that prevention is better than cure. I can quote quite a number of denominations of this nature to the hon. member, but I am not prepared to do so here in this House now. In the permissive times in which we are living and when some of our friends themselves are inclined to think in that direction, we have to try to contain this kind of thing. There is nothing wrong with it, especially if one takes into consideration that this is being asked for by responsible bodies.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of a member of the industry I would like to make representations to the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the provisions of the clause. The clause provides that when it is deemed necessary by the department that a certain variety be investigated to determine whether it is in the interests of agriculture and of the country that it be introduced for utilization, the department would have the right to obtain propagating material from the producer of the variety concerned in order to have it tested. The representations which have been made are that when the Department of Agricultural Technical Services is of the opinion that it would be in the interests of the country to investigate a variety, consideration should be given to the working out of a formula according to which the producer would be compensated. Therefore, it is not only the interests of the producer which are involved here, but also the interests of the department and of the country. Therefore, the producer has to supply propagating material for an investigation which is in everyone’s interest or at the instance of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I have not yet heard the question, although it was reasonably quiet while the hon. member was speaking. [Interjections.] However, I could perhaps help the hon. member as far as the clause is concerned. In the first instance, the clause deals with the testing of varieties and this is defined in subsection (3)(a). This service is rendered free of charge because the varieties have not yet been tested. Payment for material only takes place after the denomination of a variety has been recorded in the list of varieties. Therefore, it is in the interests of the applicant that the material for the test be supplied free of charge. Only when he is in a position to sell the varieties, is it fair to pay money to him.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

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

I indicated to the hon. the Minister last night that it was my intention to move such an amendment and I asked him to accord it his favourable consideration. In referring to the amendment, I believe that most legislation is drafted with the intention to ensure the maximum effect in terms of the object of the legislation. I also believe that it should be drafted, and usually is drafted, to ensure the maximum smoothness in operation. I believe, too, that the intention behind legislation should be to ensure the maximum co-operation of those concerned in the legislation. The intention of this amendment is to ensure that there will be the best relationship existing between the inspector and those who are inspected. No inspector appointed in terms of the Act could reasonably object to being required by the Act to exhibit his identification or his letter of authority before he carries out his duties as empowered under the Act.

I believe a person who is being inspected may show a natural reluctance to ask for the certificate with which he may assume the inspector is furnished. I believe it could break down a relationship, because the reaction from the inspector can be: “This man does not accept my bona fides; he requires true proof—I shall show him.” He could then adopt a more antagonistic attitude to the person he is inspecting. I believe that the legislature has a responsibility to the nurseryman in this instance to protect him from such an incident and also to protect him from any imposter who might come along, who might hold himself out to be an inspector but who is a fraud. The position is not disclosed and the nurseryman is not made aware of that until afterwards, because he has a built-in reluctance to seek to antagonize a person by asking for identification. I believe this Bill has broad powers because inspectors are empowered to enter, search and seize certain articles. Therefore I believe that the amendment has merit in that respect. But there are precendents. I referred last night to the Hazardous Substances Act. These provisions also exist in various sections of the Atmospheric Pollution Act of 1964 and, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any difficulty reported in regard to the implementation or administration of this particular section concerning inspectors. The Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act, the Dental Mechanicians Act, and the Drugs Control Act—all have provisions requiring that an inspector must, before he carries out an inspection, identify himself to the person whom he is inspecting. Therefore I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, to accept the amendment for the sake of the smooth administration of this Act and for the maintenance of the best relationship possible between the inspector and the nurseryman. If he accepts this amendment, I believe he will comply with his own sentiments, expressed earlier on during this Committee Stage when he said that the idea was to maintain détente. I believe this amendment will assist the hon. the Deputy Minister in maintaining détente.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment moved by my colleague from Berea. I believe he has put a perfectly reasonable case to the hon. the Deputy Minister. I think it is a case he cannot refute. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will indicate that he is going to accept it, I will not waste the time of the Committee. The hon. the Deputy Minister indicates that I must continue. I want to reinforce the argument of the hon. member for Berea and I want to draw to the attention of this Committee and particularly to the hon. the Deputy Minister, that we do have, not only in the world, but particularly in South Africa, industrial sabotage and industrial espionage. What other business is more vulnerable to this than the improvement of our plant species? Just think what harm can be done in a nursery by an unauthorized person who enters it with bad intent. Just think how quickly and easily it can be done. The hon. the Deputy Minister, like me, is concerned with the improvement of our plant species in this country. That is why we have the series of Bills which have been presented to this House. He owes it to our nurserymen to give them the added protection so that, before anybody can do anything in that nursery, he will first produce his authority. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister and others to argue that it is the right of the nurseryman to demand that authority. My hon. friend from Berea has advanced certain reasons why the man will be reluctant to do so. But if that provision is specifically written into the Bill, every nurseryman will be aware of it. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows there are provisions in this Bill in terms of which people will only be licensed provided they have a knowledge of the Act. They will have read it and they will know that they have the right to demand the credentials of any person who enters and claims to be an inspector. That deals with the question of sabotage and espionage, but what about the question of an imposter coming and stealing or taking away samples and specimens of a valuable plant? That also is a protection the hon. the Deputy Minister must give. I would appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister—in the light of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Berea—to accept this amendment which, I believe, is reasonable and which is not in any way going to interfere with the inspectors in the carrying out of their duties, but will go a long way towards attaining the confidence of the people with whom they will be working, something which is also very essential for the efficient working of this particular Act.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea moved an amendment which certainly has merit, but I do have certain doubts about the amendment in its present form. I should like to point out that nurseries have been subject to Frito sanitary inspections since 1911 and it has always been accepted by the nurserymen in a good spirit. There has always been mutual trust, and inspectors have never been obliged by legislation to identify themselves. We have to accept that the registration of nurseries is regulated by this legislation and no longer by the Agricultural Pests Act. If this amendment is accepted, it will mean that the inspector will have to identify himself even when carrying out routine Frito sanitary inspections. I can say from practical experience that it will never work, that it is not feasible. In any case, it is already being laid down administratively that an inspector may identify himself if required to do so. It is my honest opinion that it is unnecessary at this stage to make it compulsory for an inspector to identify himself. This is accepted by the parties concerned and has also been discussed in our consultations with the department. We are very glad that we now have legislation which places the idea of plant improvement on a sound footing I should like to appeal to the hon. member for Berea to withdraw his amendments at this stage. Let us give this legislation a chance, and if it seems necessary later on, we can take another look at it. At this stage, however, I do not believe it is necessary to change the present form of the legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the Government is not prepared to accept unconditionally the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Berea. It is a reasonable amendment, and it is an improvement of the legislation. It is therefore difficult to understand for what reason the Government is not prepared to accept it. All this amendment requests is simply that when visiting an establishment, officials should identify their office and the purpose of the visit. A more reasonable request cannot be imagined, and any reasonable person will agree that it could improve the relations between the establishment, the department and its officials when they do not act on an arbitrary basis. I should like to request the hon. the Minister to see this amendment in that light, i.e. as a reasonable amendment which is attempting to improve the legislation in the interests of the department and in the interests of agriculture, to protect the relations between the department, the public and the entrepreneurs and to prevent any problems arising when contact is made on that level. I really believe that the Government should not reject this amendment out of hand, but that they should rather give attention to it.

I can understand it when the hon. member for Middleburg talks about the mutual understanding that exists between nurserymen and the inspectors of the department. It is there, we agree, but I cannot see that the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Berea, who has assisted in this House to improve a great many clauses in the past, is now unacceptable. I would appeal to the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. Not so long ago they used to carry identity cards. All that is needed is a little card to say: “Ek is Van der Merwe en ek kom inspeksie doen.” That is all that is needed, and then the person who is to be inspected knows that the inspector is acting with the authority of the State. There can be no objection to it. The position could also arise, e.g. where somebody is trying to do something clandestinely with new hybrids, that endeavours are made to prevent the inspector from inspecting and to demand that he proves his identity. If it is put into this Bill, he should automatically identify himself. That would obviate somebody resisting an inspection of a nursery when there is in fact something wrong.

The hon. member for Berea notified me last night of what his intentions to move this amendment. That gave me the opportunity to consult the department and the legal advisers, and consequently I am able to offer him a well-considered reply. The hon. member’s proposed amendment may from a legalistic point of view have some merit and be acceptable. I would, however, like to refer the hon. member to Government Gazette No. 4895 of 7 November 1975, in which this Bill was published for general information I suppose that includes members of Parliament. Copies thereof were specially forwarded to all interested parties, including organizations like the S.A. Plant Breeders’ Association, the Nurserymen’s Association and the Seed Merchants’ Association—bodies which represent parties affected by the provisions of this Bill. All of them made a thorough study of the proposed Bill and offered constructive comments. None of them, however, requested an amendment of the nature of the Amendment of the hon. member, and the reason for that is clear.

That is no reason.

They do not have any doubt about the department’s intention in regard to the proposed measure, nor do they doubt the integrity of the department’s officials administering the Bill. They fully co-operate with the department’s endeavours to increase food production through increased productivity of agricultural crops. We talk the same language and fully trust each other. There I quite agree with the hon. member for Middelburg. The hon. member’s proposed amendment deals with a matter which in the past has been dealt with administratively. In terms of a departmental instruction, inspectors have been emphatically directed not to execute any of the inspection powers without having first exhibited their written authority to an affected person. Problems have never in the past been experienced, as the respective organizations could readily testify to. The hon. member for Middelburg already stressed last night the fine c-operation between the organization and the department. He said so again today. Whilst it is agreed that the hon. member’s proposed amendment could improve the legalistic correctness of the Bill, I would like to appeal to him to withdraw it at this stage. This matter is at present dealt with administratively and can for the time being be continued with on this basis. Should he agree to do it, I will give him the assurance that the departmental instructions referred to will be strictly adhered to and, further, that an amendment to that effect will be introduced on the first occasion on which further amendments to the Bill are made. The hon. member may have observed that the cost of printing this Bill amounts to R1 195. The hon. member for Bryanston must listen now. Money would be wasted if a reprint had to be made for this purpose only. Surely Parliament also has a responsibility to combat inflation, especially where such a minor issue is at stake. [Interjections.]

*Sir, it seems to me I must speak to them in Afrikaans. I am certain that hon. members may indeed rest assured about this matter. It does not present such a practical problem. Moreover, if problems should arise, they may feel free to come back. But up to now it has not been necessary in practice. I believe we could improve the Bill by adding it, but I also believe we could just as well leave it as it is. Therefore I should like to appeal to hon. members to leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to what the Deputy Minister has had to say and I appreciate the courtesy and the trouble he has taken in order to furnish the Committee with the information he has given us this afternoon. But one thing I find rather disturbing, namely that we in Parliament now must be influenced, in the manner in which we amend legislation, by the cost of printing. I realize that this is not a contentious amendment, but if we have to decide not to accept an amendment after a new Bill has been printed because of the cost of printing the amended Bill, I regret to say that it will be a sad day for Parliament. The hon. the Deputy Minister also indicated that the Bill had been published for general information. I accept that. I have the relevant Gazette in my file upstairs, forever, I believe that the function and the responsibility of a member of Parliament is not necessarily to comment at the stage when it is published for the information of the public at large. I believe that the duty, the responsibility and the function of a member of Parliament is to try to improve legislation in this House. I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to adopt, not here but perhaps in the Other Place, a positive approach to this. I want to quote to him the words of one of his illustrious former colleagues, Dr. Carel de Wet, who, when he was Minister of Health, was quoted as having said, in connection with the Medicines Control Bill to which I had proposed the same sort of amendment (Hansard, 31 October 1974, col. 7135)—

In that light the Minister was prepared to accept my amendment, and I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, if not this afternoon then in the Other Place, to consider accepting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am disappointed with the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon. I never believed that I would hear any Minister of the State come to this House and ask members not to move an amendment simply because it will save R1 000 on printing costs. That is what he has asked us to do. I want to say to the hon. the Minister, and to this Committee, that we may as well pack up now and all go home if that is going to be the attitude of this Government. And I guess it reflects the attitude of the whole Government, the arrogance of a Government that comes and says that because it has printed a Bill and does not want to waste any money on reprinting it, we must not bother to amend it. We may as well all pack up and go home. What are we wasting our time here for?

You are free to do so. Do not wait.

I am free to go? You see, Sir, that is the attitude. That is exactly what I am talking about. The attitude of members opposite is that we may as well pack up and go home because the National Party has decided and nothing is going to move them, not all the persuasiveness in the world. So we are just wasting our time here. In fact we are wasting the money of the public of South Africa in that we are taking money under false pretences, because we can serve no purpose. In fact we should not accept our salaries at the end of the month; we should not be paid because we serve no purpose. That is the attitude of the National Party—we serve no purpose at all.

Let us come back to the clause to see what the hon. the Deputy Minister says. He said, first of all, that the Bill was published last year for information. I know that it was published for information. I also happen to have the Gazette upstairs. I picked it up and I kept it. He went further and asked why members of Parliament did not submit suggested amendments. He said further that he had no representations for amendments from other parties. How are we to know this? The first opportunity that we really have to seek amendments is after we see the Bill tabled in this House, because we do not know what Bill is going to come before us after the representations of other people have been considered. Or is it being claimed that these are experienced legislators? Is it claimed that they have had the experience of the legislation introduced by the National Party that we on this side of the House have had? It is for that reason that we today come with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I want to place on record something else. The hon. the Deputy Minister implies that we have cast a doubt on the integrity of the inspectors and the officials. That is totally untrue, because none of us has at any time cast any doubts on the integrity of inspectors or officials.

You are talking nonsense now, man!

No, this is not nonsense; this is definitely what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. Mr. Chairman, I was at pains—and so was the hon. member for Berea—to ascribe the reasons for this amendment to the nurseryman’s fight against imposters. I mentioned the question of industrial sabotage, and when we look at the clause which it is proposed to amend, we should take note of the powers these persons have. A man arrives at a nursery, walks in and demands to enter and inspect the place. He demands that he may inspect and test any plant or propagating material. He can demand from the owner or custodian any book and may demand an explanation of any record or entry in that book. He may inspect any operation or process which is being carried out—a propagating process or any other process. He may seize the book or document and he may even seize the plant or propagating material. Surely the nurseryman is entitled to some protection from any person who may walk in and demand these things? Surely he is entitled to some protection. But the hon. the Deputy Minister does not wish to give him that protection. He says the matter is being dealt with administratively. We are not interested in administrative procedures; we are interested in what is laid down in the Act. I accept the integrity of the hon. the Deputy Minister. I accept that administratively this is what he would like to do, what he wants to do. But he is not going to be the incumbent of that post for all time, and we who are here as legislators must see that we bind the incumbent of that post for all time to do a certain thing. This must not be done at will or because a Minister happens to have the interest concerned at heart, as this hon. Deputy Minister obviously has. He must be bound by the legislation of this House.

I regret that we cannot withdraw this amendment. We feel it is imperative for the successful implementation of this Act. We therefore sincerely hope that it will be implemented successfully, and I repeat what I said earlier as a final plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister to change his mind: To get the co-operation of the people with whom he wishes to work, please accept this amendment as a gesture of good faith and as a gesture of assistance to them.

I have taken great pains to give proper consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. I also gave the reasons why I was unable to accept it. One reason I gave, was the cost aspect. I am sorry that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South was running me down at the start and had lost his confidence in me, but I was glad to hear that he did have a few words of praise to say about me towards the end. Therefore I believe that things are all right once more. All the hon. members who dealt with this Bill on the opposite side, are, with one exception, semi-farmers, whereas the hon. member for Middelburg is the chairman of the S.A. Nurserymen’s Association. Am I really to disregard the plea of the farmers’ representative, the representative of the industry, somebody who was definitely elected democratically? I should like to ask the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in particular, when it comes to agriculture, please to be responsible. I should like to tell the hon. member for Berea, who has always treated me very decently, that we shall see whether we cannot rectify this aspect in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to subsection 3(b) of clause 25. It provides that a sample may be taken—

The description “any other witness” is not acceptable or advisable, because the sort of witnesses or persons found on such premises, will most probably not be the sort of witness who will be able to negotiate with understanding with a representative of the State. In other words, the witnesses who will be available and who may be accepted as witnesses in terms of this legislation, will, in general, be unskilled workers at such an undertaking and will not be allowed by their employer to negotiate with an official of the State. They will in any event not have the understanding or the ability to negotiate with such an official. Therefore I feel that the description “any other witness” is not acceptable. A witness authorized thereto by the employer, is acceptable, but not “any other witness”.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why these new farmers in this House are trying to dictate to us.

Urban farmers!

I do not know where the hon. member gets that from, i.e. his argument concerning all the people to be found on the premises. The intention is in any event that it has to be a second inspector. Where he gets the people from, I do not know.

That is not what the legislation provides. Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister says the intention is that it has to be a second inspector. The legislation, however, does not give any indication of that whatsoever. All the legislation says, is that it has to be in the presence of any other witness. The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot dismiss this objection just like that by saying the intention is that it has to be a second inspector. If he wants that to be the case, the hon. the Deputy Minister should word his legislation accordingly. Those intentions are not clear from the wording as it is.

Mr. Chairman, this is not new legislation. It is the consolidation of two Acts which have been applied since 1961. That is the way in which it has been done for the past 15 years. Now I should like to know why the hon. member, after 15 years, wants to conjure up spectres. The only explanation I have for that, is that the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I am sorry, but I am of the opinion that the provision is adequate as it is.

Mr. Chairman, in terms of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s undertaking and his promise that the matter will be reviewed in the Other Place, I wish to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 35:

Mr. Chairman, clause 35 deals with offences and penalties in respect of certain offences. During the discussion of the Plant Breeders’ Rights Bill I raised objections to the fact that where offences are committed and where provision is made for penalties and imprisonment—imprisonment for a period not exceeding two years or a penalty not exceeding R1 000—and where it concerns complicated technical matters, cases of this nature are tried in the ordinary magistrate’s court. I also suggested at that stage that cases of this nature should rather be referred to the Supreme Court to be tried there. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture did not reply to this. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister could perhaps furnish me with a reply. I want to know whether it would not be advisable to refer cases of this nature to a higher court. Owing to the complicated nature of these matters on which judgment has to be passed, and owing to the heavy penalties and imprisonment for which provision is being made, cases of this nature do not, in my opinion, belong in a magistrate’s court.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bryanston is of the opinion that it would be advisable for cases of this nature to be tried by a judge of the Supreme Court. These are not, as he has said, highly technical cases, cases which involve real experts. Nevertheless, I think the necessary precautionary measures have been made in each case so that we can proceed in the manner suggested in the legislation. Our law advisers approved of it as it stands and I, as a layman, have to accept that this is a satisfactory manner in which to try offences of this nature in a court of law. If the hon. member is able to advance other reasons—in addition to those he has already advanced—as to why cases of this nature should not be tried in a magistrate’s court, I am prepared to consider them. I should just like to draw his attention to the fact that cases of this nature could involve large sums of money. For that reason heavy penalties are required as a proper deterrent. However, when it comes to the legal aspect it is my honest opinion that we should rather call in our legal friends to argue the matter.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 37:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the liability of an employer or principal with regard to an offence which may be committed by his employees. We find that any act or omission of an employee or manager or agent constitutes an offence in terms of the Bill and becomes an offence committed by the employee, the employer or the principal himself. We find, however, that there are the following exceptions to this—

1. (a) that he did not permit or connive at such act or omission;
2. (b) that he took all reasonable measures to prevent an act or omission of the nature in question; and
3. (c) that an act or omission, whether legal or illegal, of the nature in question did not under any condition or in any circumstances fall within the course of the employment or the scope of the authority of the employee, manager or agent concerned.

So far, so good; this is fine. We have the situation where a presumption is raised. The employee has committed an offence and the employer can be found guilty of the same offence, or shall be held to have committed the same offence, unless he can discharge the onus of proof which rests on him that he took all necessary precautions to see to it that the employee under his control would not commit the said offence.

Sir, having put in subparagraph (b), stating that the employer took “all reasonable measures to prevent an act or omission of the nature in question’’, we also have the addition of subsection (2), which reads:

As I have said, we believe that the onus is on the accused—in this case the employer—to prove that he took all reasonable action to prevent the offence from being committed. I believe that in each case it should be reasonable for the accused to satisfy the court that whatever steps he took were adequate and reasonable enough to prevent the offence taking place. If the court is satisfied that the accused has taken adequate steps—what is adequate in the eyes of the court—the court should then be free to decide that the employer shall not be guilty of the offence committed by his employee.

It is for that reason that I now move—

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the Price Control Act, which was debated by this Committee a little while ago. I want particularly to refer to section 17 of the Act, which provides that the principal shall be responsible for certain acts of his manager, his servant or his agent. Although these provisions are very similar, there is a specific difference.

The proviso at the end of that clause states that the fact that such a person issued instructions forbidding any act or omission of the kind in question shall not in itself be accepted as sufficient proof. However, I do believe there is a difference when it comes to the issuing of instructions, something which by its very nature is wide in its implication. An instruction is issued by an employer by writing out a notice and then by telling the office boy to go and show it to all the employees or by pinning it on the notice board, and that instruction, so issued, in its very essence, is of a general nature. Here, however, we are faced with the fact that even if “an employer or principal forbade an act or omission …", which implies a specific act or a specific omission, that will not constitute a sufficient defence for the employer when he is brought before the court. I believe this is unreasonable. We have farmers sitting in this Committee this afternoon. Over there I see my friend, the hon. member for Bethal. He may have specifically forbidden his farm manager from doing a specific thing which would constitute an offence. However, if that manager were to commit the offence, the hon. member for Bethal could be arranged before the court in terms of this Act. What are the offences? Let us have a look at the offences. One of the offences involves a person making a false entry in the register. If the hon. member for Bethal has told his manager not to make a false entry in the register, it is not sufficient proof that the hon. member for Bethal is not guilty. He has to find some other way of rebutting the presumption or onus placed on him in terms of this section. I believe that to be unreasonable. It is also an offence for someone who fails or refuses to make any statement. How can the principal be held responsible if his employees fail to make a statement, or obstructs or hinders the registrar or any officer in the continuing of his duties? How can this be done? Supposing the employer has given his employees the Act, told them to read it and not to contravene any of its provisions, and he has exercised the normal control expected of a reasonable employer, how can one expect to hold him further liable after he has specifically forbidden that particular act or that particular omission? I believe this is unreasonable in the context of this Bill. We have opposed this provision in other Bills, and I know it did slip through in the Seeds Act. Let me acknowledge that fact, before the hon. the Deputy Minister talks about that Act. It slipped through there; I concede that point. However, it has not slipped past us since then. We have picked it up on every occasion and we have opposed it on every occasion. I regret the fact that we cannot, therefore, accept this provision in this Bill. I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to see reason, be sweet reasonableness now and accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South Even became jovial towards the end of his plea. Apparently it is a matter of principle on the part of the United Party to oppose this kind of provision. We therefore differ essentially in principle on that score. Therefore, I cannot argue about this any further. Nevertheless, I just want to quote something to the hon. member. This Act is a conslidation of Acts, for example the Seeds Act, 1961, the Foundation Seed Act, 1961, and the Agricultural Pests Act, 1973. With that fact as background I should like to quote to the hon. member from column 3909 of Hansard of 5 April 1961 when the Seeds Bill was under discussion. At that time a very friendly old gentleman with the name of Captain Henwood …

My predecessor.

Exactly, the hon. member’s predecessor! I do not know why this should happen to Pietermaritzburg South. I quote—

Now listen carefully. I quote further—

He welcomed it, and that was in 1961. Let us see what was said by Mr. Miles Warren, also a former hon. member of this House. I quote (Hansard, Vol. 107, col. 3910)—

Since that time up till the present the situation has really improved. However, if we want good quality seed, we shall have to accept this measure, in spite of the objections raised by the hon. gentleman, and we shall have to do it in this way. The clause as it reads at present—and the hon. member must listen now—is exactly the same as the clause on which the two hon. gentlemen whom I quoted had been in agreement. Why then is such a hue and cry being raised?

Was it about this specific clause or about the Bill in general?

What I have quoted here, relates to a clause which is exactly the same as the one we have in front of us now. I want to stand by my previous statement that, if it had not been a matter of principle on the part of the United Party to oppose this kind of provision, hon. members would not have stood up to raise objections. If the hon. members are unable to change their attitude, we shall have to agree to differ.

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the amendment put by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and I think it greatly improves the clause. I am afraid, however, that I find the argument of the hon. the Deputy Minister extremely unconvincing. One must realize, I think, that there are very heavy penalties provided for in this Bill, penalties as severe as two years’ imprisonment and R1 000 in fines. I understand that in certain circumstances—and some of these circumstances may be contained in this Bill—there may be an argument for shifting the onus in the first place to an accused. Let me mention the example of a receiver of stolen goods. Once stolen goods are found in someone’s possession, the onus is shifted to that person to prove that he did not knowingly have the stolen goods in his possession. However, when an onus is shifted there should be very serious and proper reasons why it is being shifted on to any person other than the State in proving a crime. In this particular case the onus is being shifted on to a person who, in the first instance, is not even an accused person. He is not even before the court and yet it is proposed that the onus be now shifted upon him to show that he, in fact, was not a party to the offence in question. I should like to ask why it is necessary, in matters such as this, for the onus in all cases to be shifted to an employer when in fact an employee has been brought before the court.

There is another point I should like to raise. I think that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in trying to preserve and enhance the value of this Bill, has shifted the onus far more stringently than would normally be necessary. For example, if one looks at the bottom of page 41, one sees in clause 37(1) the following—

Now what is meant by the words “unless he proves”? We are now talking of criminal offences. We interpret this to mean that the onus is upon the employer or principal to prove to the magistrate or the judicial officer beyond any reasonable doubt—because I think that is the onus in a criminal matter—that he is, in fact, not involved in the crime concerned. I say that a case might well come before the courts where an employee, perhaps to protect himself, is hostile towards his employer. Such an employee may make it very difficult for an employer to prove to the court beyond a reasonable doubt, with all the witnesses that will be required, that this was in fact a situation in which the employer was not involved at all, a situation in which he had in fact taken reasonable steps to try to prevent the abuse. In a civil case there is a lesser onus, which is described as the onus to prove something, “on the balance of probability”. It is an onus in terms of which the particular party must satisfy the presiding officer that, on a balance of probabilities, he is telling the truth and that his case is the stronger one, in which case judgment may be given in his favour.

I would say, firstly, that I do believe we should accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. With all respect, I think it is really a bad argument for the Deputy Minister to say that he cannot understand why this matter is being opposed seeing that 10, 15 or 20 years ago another member who happened to be in the United Party at that time expressed himself in favour of this measure. In all sincerity, I think that that is a ridiculous argument. I think that times and laws change, that concepts of the law change. When we talk in terms of shifting the onus, I think it is an incorrect principle to extend the shifting of an onus. It is, in fact, a better principle to restrict such a shift.

I should like to move a further amendment. I apologize to the hon. the Deputy Minister for not having forewarned him of this amendment. However, it is a very simple amendment and I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister will understand it. I wish to move as an amendment—

on a balance of probabilities

In conclusion, I think we should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept my amendment, thus creating a slightly less onerous onus, if I may put it that way, together with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, I think we shall have an improved clause.

Mr. Chairman, I think both Opposition parties are missing the real point of this clause, which is that the responsibility of selling good quality plant material and good quality seed should rest upon the owner of the industry. For that reason the owner will not be able to use the excuse that one of his employees or anyone else has acted on incorrect instructions. The intention is simply to determine that the final responsibility should rest upon the owner. That is why clause 37(2) has been framed in this way. The owner should not be in in a position to use any excuse which he is not entitled to.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that, as he apparently has the intention of perhaps changing this Bill in the Other Place in the light of the amendment moved by my hon. colleague, I think he should consider amending this clause as well in the light of the suggestion of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I want to suggest to him that the words of Capt. Henwood which he quoted, in fact constituted eulogistic praise of that particular Bill and not of the relevant clause. Furthermore, I believe the words quoted come from the Second Reading debate on that Bill and not from the Committee Stage. That quotation is therefore not really germane to the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South.

I feel I should ask the hon. member for Middleburg to listen very carefully to the arguments which have been put forward here this afternoon. I believe he has some influence with the hon. the Deputy Minister in that he holds a very important position in an organization which is concerned with this particular Bill. I am sure that that hon. member will have to give an account of his attitude to his organization when he goes back to them and that he will have to tell them why he agreed to accept our amendment.

I believe that the whole point of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South is that we want the court to decide whether the fact that a principal forebade an act is a reasonable measure or not. The court should decide whether the mere fact that an employer said to his employee “Don’t do this” is sufficient or not. We say do not put it in the Act. It is possible that, in the case where an employer forbade an act, the court finds that that was the only reasonable measure the employer could take. But now, because of subsection (2) of clause 37, the court cannot find that the employer has complied with the second requirement of the deeming clause. There are three requirements to the deeming clause, all of which have to be proved. Proving only one of them would not be sufficient; they must all be proved. If the court finds that the second requirement has not been proved, because of the provisions of subsection (2), the poor employer is out of court and will be found guilty. This is what is in fact going to happen. We believe that this is wrong, not because year after year we have differed in principle with the hon. members on the other side, but because we believe that this is a practical situation which can arise to the disadvantage of employers in a business of the nature with which this Bill deals.

I also believe that the question of placing the onus on the accused to prove that he is not guilty, should always be used with a tremendous amount of reluctance. Here it is being used again, but I believe we should protect people who have to discharge that onus. We believe that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sandton is also a reasonable amendment, because it will in effect allow the court to decide on a balance of probabilities and not “beyond reasonable doubt” whether the employer was in fact a party to the misdeed or not—that is, after all, what this is all about. Therefore we ask the hon. member for Middleburg to support us and to persuade the hon. the Deputy Minister to accept our amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. members for Sandton and East London City I should like to ask: Do you know an attorney? If I begin to differ from an attorney, I find myself another attorney to discuss the matter with him on my behalf. I have asked the law adviser for an opinion on this matter. Apparently this is a matter of principle on which the United Party wants to differ as they have differed on this matter in quite a number of Acts. I do not know, Sir, but there is simply no alternative for us but to refuse to concede this point.

Amendment moved by Mr. D. J. Dalling negatived (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Amendment moved by Mr. W. T. Webber negatived (Official Opposition and Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause agreed to.

Clause 38:

Mr. Chairman, this clause reads as follows—

We feel it is very unreasonable for the State not to accept responsibility for an act on the part of an officer of the State who acts in terms of the provisions of this Bill simply because the officer has acted in good faith. It would be very difficult for a person who feels himself aggrieved to prove that the officer did not act in good faith. I really feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister should give serious attention to the deletion of this clause from the legislation at a later stage, because it jeopardizes the interests of persons and bodies.

Mr. Chairman, what the objection raised by the hon. member for Bryanston really amounts to is that it is wrong to restrict the responsibility of the State when its employees are negligent. Surely, the officers must have some protection, and I think it is only right that when something is done in good faith and a mistake is made, these people should enjoy some measure of protection in the fulfilment of their duties. I should like to quote an example. When the registrar, in terms of clause 16, accepts an application from a person for the recognition of a variety on the basis of proof submitted to him and it subsequently appears that such proof was neither genuine nor sufficient, the registrar has the power to reject the application, in terms of clause 19, or to terminate the recognition of the variety in terms of clause 22(2). I am merely furnishing an example to indicate why it is necessary to protect an official. When the registrar is not in a position—because incomplete information has been furnished to him—to determine, in terms of clause 18, the distinguishability of a variety during tests and experiments—does the hon. member know what this means—such application will necessarily have to be reconsidered after the proper information has been furnished. Surely, one cannot hold the official responsible for that, and for that reason he has to be indemnified. However, the State will in fact be responsible for compensation if the registrar wilfully refuses to grant the right immediately after he has satisfied himself in terms of clause 20(1) that an application may be granted. The State is not protected if its officer wilfully makes a mistake. If the officer is negligent, the State is not protected either. For example, the registrar may be negligent by failing to publish in the Government Gazette information that has to be published.

In summary, it may be mentioned that the registrar and his officers have to fulfil numerous functions in terms of the Bill. If they fail in a wilful or negligent manner to do so, the indemnification provided in the clause is forfeited. If the State defends itself against a claim by pleading good faith, it has to prove in any case that the act has been done in good faith.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the reply furnished by the hon. the Deputy Minister in connection with the provisions in question and any acts done. However, what about cases where officers enter the premises of establishments and remove material or books or act in a manner which is, in fact, consistent with the legislation but is harmful to the owner of the premises on which such act is carried out by the official? If any damage is caused the official may argue that he acted in terms of the provisions of the Act, and that he acted in good faith. In that case there would be no protection against damages. Nowhere does the legislation contain any provisions in terms of which people are afforded protection against damages. The legislation therefore affords the Government complete indemnification in all respects where an official can argue that he acted in accordance with the provisions of the legislation or where the State can argue that the officer acted in good faith.

Mr. Chairman, I am unable to agree with the hon. gentleman on this point. After all, if someone is prejudiced in an unlawful manner, he still enjoys the protection of the court. I simply cannot believe that the clause refuses to protect people if they have suffered damages as a result of negligence, wilfulness or even theft. This is in any case not the intention and, according to the law advisers, no such interpretation can be attached to it.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in dealing with this clause I should like to refer the hon. the Minister briefly to the long title, line 4 of which reads—

Clause 2 reads—

On page 5 we read—

Sir, I believe that this a drastic measure, and my appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon is to reconsider the position. Under certain circumstances an irrigator of land could omit to pay his arrears for some reason or other. But having paid the arrears plus interest, he could still have his supply of water stopped. It could be that this particular irrigator has a beautiful crop on his land and for some reason or other he finds himself in arrear in respect of interest. There could be many reasons for it. He could be an amateur politician fighting an election somewhere with the Progrefs wasting his time. There are so many other reasons why he could have omitted to pay his water rates. But once having paid his arrear water rates, he finds that the Minister has stopped his supply of water. Sir, I believe that while it is said “ ’n Ander man se boeke is duister om te lees”, there may be many reasons why irrigators have failed to pay their water rates. But, as I say, having paid those rates, including the arrear interest, for the Minister still to stop his water supply is, I believe, putting that man into a very awkward situation. It is a drastic measure. It could cost this particular irrigator a large sum of money. His whole season’s crop could die because of this. While we on this side of the House will not move an amendment, I appeal to the hon. the Minister, being as humane as he is, to bear with such people in these circumstances and to prevent a precarious situation arising

Mr. Chairman, I have full sympathy with what the hon. member for East London City has said, but I want to point out that this is not really the intention, of this Bill. The only thing we are altering here is the rate of interest. Nothing else is being altered. But I have listened to his plea for poor farmers, especially those who belong to the Progressive Party and land themselves in a mess, and I will certainly have a look at that. But I do want to point out that since I have been in this position, for the last month or so, there was only one occasion on which the department put certain facts before me and asked me whether they could stop the water supply because of arrear rates. In this case, as far as I can recollect, the rates were in arrear for years. The actual position is that we warn farmers again and again and give them all the time we can. So I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we do everything possible to help even amateur politicians.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Clause 1 (a):

Section 4(3)(a)(i) of the Scientific Research Council Act provides, inter alia, that the council, in order to achieve its objects and with the approval of the Minister, may hire or let immovable property. Owing to the problems experienced in the 30 years since the establishment or the CSIR, it is now being proposed in clause 1(a) that the said council may, without ministerial approval of every separate transaction, hire or let immovable property. The purchase of such immovable property, however, still remains subject to ministerial approval.

The hiring of specific premises often requires speedy action. This applies in particular to premises required for the carrying out of contract work, and also for housing, but sometimes, too, for other premises for ordinary use where the lessors are usually not prepared to wait for more than a few days or at the most a few weeks for a reply. If, for sound reasons, the Minister is perhaps unavailable, it may occur that suitable premises slip through one’s fingers. This can also mean that housing which suddenly falls vacant has to remain vacant until the Minister’s approval for its reletting can be obtained.

It is also of importance to mention here that the expenditure on this Vote—hiring of immovable property—is very minor. According to a calculation made, it comprises about 0,1% of the total current expenditure.

I should like to point out that the annual expenditure of the CSIR has to be approved by two Ministers, namely the Minister of Planning and the Environment and the Minister of Finance, and that the State’s contribution to the funds of the CSIR have to be voted by Parliament.

There is much to be said for the fact that as regards the hiring and letting of immovable property, too, full control, seen from a parliamentary point of view as well, may be exercised by way of the annual approval of the council’s budget. By way of comparison it may be mentioned that the purchase or hiring or letting of movable property can only be carried out with the approval of the president of the CSIR. For example he has the power summarily to conclude contracts of hire amounting to R750 000 per annum relating to computer services.

The clause also provides for the power requested to be granted with retrospective effect to 1 April 1962—the date of the principal Act. In this regard it may be mentioned that an enquiry by the State auditors in 1973 brought to light that the staff of the council’s institutes had failed all along to comply with the requirements for the hiring or letting of immovable property and had themselves concluded a number of agreements without the required approval.

However, I have satisfied myself that this was done in good faith and that apart from the fact that the letter of the law had not been strictly followed, no irregularities had occurred.

Clause 1(b):

The present wording of section 4(3)(b) creates uncertainty with regard to the intention of the legislator, and it could be understood in the sense that the council may only do the unmentioned things which are conducive to the achievement of its objects and in fact at the moment this is the only test which can apply. It is thought that the concept “conducive” has a limiting effect on the exercise of an express power or the carrying out of an express duty by the council.

In order to rectify the matter, the insertion of clause 1(b) is proposed.

Clause 2:

At various places in the principal Act the “president” is given powers which the acting president, viz. the person appointed to act as president during the absence of the president or when the post of president is vacant, must also be able to exercise.

Section 10(2) of the Interpretation Act (Act No. 32 of 1957) states that where an Act refers to a “holder” of an office, this is to be interpreted as also referring to the person acting in the capacity of such holder “unless the contrary intention appears”.

It appears from the definition of “president” in the principal Act and its context that the acting president does not in fact have the necessary powers. The proposed extension of section 6(3) is intended to rectify this position.

Clause 3:

Clause 3(1)(a) replaces section 10(1) of the principal Act in order to achieve three aims: (a) The part which is deleted in section 10(1)(a) is replaced by a new section 10(1)(c) in order that it may be clearly stated that officials and employees of the council are not only appointed at such remuneration as the Minister has approved, but that subsequently they are also paid such remuneration as the Ministers may from time to time approve. (b) The provision made for the payment of allowances in section 10(1)(a) is replaced by a new section 10(d)(d) in terms of which the CSIR is authorized to pay the allowances payable in the Public Service to officials and employees of the council as well. The council is a semi-State institution and there is no reason why such allowances which have already been approved for the Public Service, should again have to be approved by two Ministers before being paid to the staff of the CSIR. (c) A new section 10(1)(e) is being inserted in order that it may clearly be stated that all appointments of staff are subject to the other conditions of service which the council may from time to time determine. It is the intention that all appointments should also be subject to the conditions of service determined after appointments are made.

I want to mention again that I shall move an amendment at the Committee Stage in regard to this section of the Bill. In order to explain the step I should like to point out that it has now come to light that the definition of “conditions of service in the Public Service” includes certain matters which have financial implications, for example leave, transport, pension benefits and so on. For this reason it has been deemed necessary for any conditions of service which will result in direct expenditure from the funds of the Council to be subject to the approval of the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Clause 3(1)(b) amends section 10(2) of the principal Act, because it has been qualified by the Associated Institutions Pension Fund Act, 1963. Clause 3(1)(c) adds a new subsection (5) to section 10 of the principal Act, in order to authorize the council to advance amounts to certain members of the staff of the council to enable them to become members of a certain pension fund or provident fund. It is the policy of the council to encourage members of its staff who are members of the old provident fund to become members of the new pension fund or provident fund; but such persons have to pay in substantial amounts in order to do so.

On the basis of section 4(3)(b) of the principal Act, which authorizes the council to do all such things as are conducive to the achievement of its objects, it is considered that it already has the necessary authorization to advance such amounts, but the Controller and Auditor-General questioned the validity of the advances and the State legal advisers agreed with him. It is proposed, therefore, to authorize the council, with retrospective effect to 1 August 1973, to advance such amounts. I may add here, too, that the amendments required under clauses 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) have already been effected as regards the Bureau of Standards by means of Act No. 57 of 1975.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House feel that the principles contained in the legislation are in no way contentious; in fact, we regard them as an improvement on the existing dispensation and consequently we have no objection to them. We do of course regard ourselves to a certain extent as the guardian of this important organization because it was during the time that this party was in power that the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research came into being. Consequently, we are prepared to support any amendment which will render the organization more effective. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for having supported the Bill. He states that the CSIR was in its infancy when the UP was in power. That is probably true, but nevertheless I do not think that one would recognize the adult that that baby has grown into.

The proposed amendments to the Scientific Research Council Act (Act No. 32 of 1962) which I shall hereafter call the principal Act, really deals with four aspects of the principal Act. In the first place, it provides for the hiring and letting of immovable property by the council of the CSIR without ministerial approval. In the second place, it effects a clearer definition of the powers of the council. Thirdly, it is expressly provided that the acting president takes upon himself the duties, functions and responsibilities of the president when acting as president. In the fourth place, amendments are being effected in order to allow more flexible and realistic handling of the conditions of service and staff affairs. This concerns the conditions relating to appointments, remuneration, increases and pension funds.

The principal Act was amended as far back as 1964 to provide that the council of the CSIR may purchase, let or hire movable goods. Before the amendment came into operation, the situation was that the council of the CSIR could not even buy a desk or typewriter without the approval of the Minister concerned. In 1964 the then Deputy Minister summed up the problem as follows—

Today we are not asking for quite the same thing. However, whereas the council was satisfied that as far as parliamentary supervision was concerned, there was adequate control because the budget of the CSIR was approved annually by two Ministers, the Minister of Planning and the Minister of Finance, and that consequently there was a degree of control, we are asking today that as far as immovable property is concerned, the Minister’s approval will no longer be necessary with regard to the hiring and letting of such property. The Council of the CSIR sometimes finds itself in a very difficult position. When one bears in mind that the council of the CSIR has research offices and research premises in many countries, for example in London, Paris, Washington and Teheran, to mention only a few, then one realize that it is very difficult always to obtain ministerial approval in time with regard to the hiring and letting of offices. Sometimes very small amounts are involved, amounts which are purely nominal rentals. The Minister has to be troubled about this and we believe that this is unnecessary and that the amendment of the Act is necessary for the smooth operation of the organization.

As far as the second amendment is concerned, we are only asking for an addition to section 4(3)(b) in order that the powers of the CSIR may be more clearly defined. Since one is dealing here with scientific researchers and people who undertake studies, we find that they are uncertain and sometimes even feel oppressed and despondent because they do not know whether what they are tackling and doing is in fact covered by the powers defined in the Bill. It is therefore the duty of the House to eliminate the uncertainty which may exist. That is why we are proposing the addition to the article.

There is a legal problem with regard to the definition of “president” and “acting president”. We are now asking that this be solved. The functions and duties of the president are referred to a number of times in the principal Act. In section 6(1), for example, it is stated that the president is appointed for a certain period. In section 7(2) it is stated that the president may at any time call a special meeting of the council which shall be held at such time and place as he may direct. Section 8(1) provides that the council has an executive committee consisting of the president and two other members. Constant reference is made to the president. The problem arises with regard to the definition of the term “president” because it reads as follows—

The president is appointed in terms of section 5 of the principal Act whereas the acting president is appointed in terms of section 6(3) of the Act. What we are asking for here, therefore, is merely an addition to the extent that when we designate the acting president in section 6(3) we add—

As regards the fourth category of amendment proposed in this Bill, this really concerns appointments and other conditions of service and all that is really being done here is to grant the council of the CSIR greater powers in order to give them greater freedom of action with regard to the employees and officials of the CSIR. The CSIR works with people engaged in study and research and one is tempted to say that this is a group of sui generis employees, and furthermore many of them are recruited overseas. I believe that it is not always so easy for the CSIR to attract these people because these researchers are in fact scarce. I therefore believe that it is the duty of this House as far as possible to enable the CSIR to obtain and also to retain these employees. One way of assisting them in this regard is making the conditions of service prescribed in the Act as flexible and adaptable as possible. It is with this purpose in mind, too, that we support the proposed amendments in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I would like to say that we shall support this Bill with pleasure, particularly the provisions which make for better conditions of employment for the employees of the CSIR. We believe that it is vitally important that everything should be done to improve the conditions of employment, and anything in that connection will obviously receive our support. We support it particularly from the point of view that large numbers of scientific personnel are lost annually by the CSIR and the SABS to private enterprise. In order to maintain the very high standards there, it is important that steps should be taken to make the jobs as attractive and secure as possible for the personnel.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow for having supported this Bill on behalf of the official Opposition. He made mention of the fact that the UP was the father of this child from 1947. In other words, they accept responsibility for the birth of this child. Three years later we had to adopt this child. We accepted this stepchild as our own and brought him up so well that today the hon. member unconditionally accepts, with so much acclamation, any addition or Bill we bring to this House in this regard. I thank him for this, and at the same time, what he says testifies to what the NP has done over the past 28 years. I took cognizance too, of the excellent exposition by the hon. member for Pretoria East. He discussed certain aspects of the legislation. This shows that he takes an interest, that he has a sound knowledge of these matters and that he has fully acquainted himself with this legislation. Consequently it is unnecessary for me to refer to it again. Very sound reasons have been furnished and I think that I have motivated what I want to say in this regard in the Second Reading.

†In conclusion, I want to thank the hon. member for Bryanston for his unqualified support of this Bill and especially for the fact that he made some laudatory remarks towards our scientists who are today in the forefront of the fight against inflation, ignorance and everything we have in mind that retards progress. The fact that he specifically mentioned this and that it caused his party to give their unqualified support, is something I wish to commend.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 3:

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

I have already furnished the reasons for this amendment in the Second Reading, viz. that it has come to light that certain conditions of service of the employees of the CSIR also involve an increase in financial expenditure for the Government. When financial expenditures occur in conditions of service, then I believe it is quite right that this should come to both Ministers for approval. That is the reason for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection to this provision. It is a normal insertion in legislation of this nature and we support it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Since the passing of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963 (Act 24 of 1963), several areas have been reserved for occupation or possession by Coloured in terms of the provisions of the abovementioned Act, or the provisions of the Act have been applied to existing areas. At present there are 22 areas for which either an advisory board or a board of management has been established in terms of the provisions of the above mentioned Act. A further area has recently been incorporated and a board has to be established for this.

In order to increase the efficiency of a board of management, the said Act also provides for a board of management to make regulations concerning certain local matters with the approval of the Minister. However, this means that each board of management may promulgate its own set of regulations to meet its local needs.

However, the Act also provides for the Minister to make standard regulations concerning any matter with respect to which a Board of management can make regulations. Standard regulations made by the Minister can be accepted unchanged in their entirety or in any part thereof by a board of management as regulations for its area. This provision not only prevents every board of management from making its own regulations and having them promulgated in the Government Gazette, but also saves the State the cost of publication.

Standard regulations have been made and promulgated, and this now offers the boards the opportunity of accepting them unchanged either in their entirety, or in any part, thus avoiding the promulgation of separate regulations for their respective areas.

However, it is foreseen that due to local needs and circumstances which differ from one area to another, some boards will not be able to accept the standard regulations, in their entirety or in parts, unchanged and without amendments. Section 30 of Act 24 of 1963, in terms of which the standard regulations are made does not provide, however, for any amendment of the standard regulations or of parts thereof. In order to enable boards of management to accept the standard regulations not only in their entirety or in part, but also in an amended form, it has been found necessary to amend section 30 as provided for in this amending Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support the Bill which the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations has introduced. The Bill seeks to amend section 30 of the Rural Coloured Areas Act, 1963. As far as I can see, apart from the minor amendments to bring greater clarity and other amendments which are purely consequential, the proposed amendments in clause 1(b) introduce greater flexibility into the Act. It also makes it possible for certain of the management boards which operate in the rural areas to propose and to promulgate, with the approval of the Minister, amendments to the standard regulations or parts thereof. There are many of these Coloured rural areas and these vary from place to place. There are great differences in their locality and the problems that arise there. Bearing in mind that there are very considerable differences and needs within these areas, the Act will now be easier to apply and will more readily meet the needs of the different communities in Coloured rural areas. I understand that the former members of the executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council requested this particular legislation at the time. As far as I know, it has the approval of the present executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. For these reasons and the fact that the Bill appears to be an effort to make the Act a better Act, we on this side have much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, it is definitely the desire of the Government that our Coloured population should be happy. For this reason the right to own property, even in rural areas, has been incorporated in the policy of separate development. There are a board of management and an advisory board for these people to govern these rural areas. It is necessary to increase the effectiveness of a management board, and therefore the legislation provides that a management board, with the approval of the Minister, may make regulations concerning various local affairs. This means that each management board may make its own set of regulations to provide for local needs. The 23 rural Coloured areas differ according to circumstances. Many parts of these areas are suitable for agriculture and agronomy while other areas are suitable for stock-farming. For this reason the amendments to this Act come as a very important and suitable step at this juncture.

I would like to support the Bill. It is understandable that due to local needs and circumstances—which differ from area to area—some boards will not be in a position to accept unchanged, regulations in their entirety or in parts, the standard regulations which have been promulgated. However, section 30 of Act 24 of 1963, in terms of which the standard regulations were made, does not provide for any amendment of the standard regulations or parts thereof. In order to enable management boards to accept the standard regulations, not only in their entirety or in parts, but also in an amended form, it has been found necessary to amend section 30, as contained in this legislation. This legislation enables the Coloured population to realize its highest ideals, its own desires and its utmost aspirations. Just as the Group Areas Act enables him to find happiness in his own family, to own his own house and to build his own house according to his own taste, so this legislation enables him to have and manage his own rural areas. The amendment of this Act makes it possible for the Coloured people to handle these matters in the most effective manner possible. It is important that the Coloured community should realize the value of the right to own property, particularly in rural areas. We believe that the Coloured population of South Africa should also be attached to the land. They must be enabled to manage and control these areas with the greatest efficiency. I believe that the amendment to the Act proposed by the hon. the Minister meets that requirement. The Coloured people own 23 rural Coloured areas, and it is a privilege for us to think that the Coloured community today owns rural areas which are 1717 531 ha in extent, and that we must make it possible for the Coloured people, by means of the amendment of the Act, to manage these areas effectively. Good administration and management are necessary, as well as regulations which should be put at the disposal of these people. I would like to see more rural areas are being opened to the Coloured people, especially areas which border on Coloured towns and cities. Particularly in respect of Coloured rural areas situated in the lower Orange River area, the regulations are phrased in such a way as to enable these people to create a new future for themselves.

This legislation gives the Coloured people the opportunity to develop, by means of hard work, that which is their own, and this holds great possibilities for them. Therefore I am pleased that we can introduce this Bill today for the advancement of the Coloured community.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prieska sees aspects of Coloured development in this amendment of the principal Act which are not apparent to me. In any event, the hon. member has the right to interpret it the way he wants to. As far as I am concerned, this is a minor amendment to the principal Act. The objections which we could raise in principle would actually be directed against the principal Act. They are not affected by this amending Bill; indeed, I think that within the context of the principal Act, this amending Bill is an improvement on the existing legislation. The hon. the Minister himself pointed out that there will be a greater deal of flexibility with respect to the management boards, and that in future they may show greater initiative in dealing with local problems which may arise. Therefore we in these benches do not raise any objection against the proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the support of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and of other members of his party, and also for the support coming from the hon. member for Rondebosch and members of his party. As the hon. member for Rondebosch has pointed out, the amendment is only intended to make the present Act more flexible.

*Having said that, I would also like to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his contribution. As a member of the Theron Commission, he has had the privilege of observing more things than most of the other members here may have been able to observe. The hon. member has also been able to acquire first-hand knowledge concerning the rural areas—their potential and their shortcomings. Furthermore I want to thank the hon. member for Prieska for the contribution which he made. He is someone who has an intimate personal knowledge of some of the rural areas.

Perhaps today is not quite the right opportunity, but if we can draw attention to the potential of the rural areas and the opportunities which these areas present to our Coloured people, especially those who are attached to the land, surely we will be achieving something. In any event, my sincere thanks to the other side of the House for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendment of the principal Act has become necessary in order to effect the establishment of differentiated education in the Republic of South Africa. This has also become necessary now with regard to the Coloured population. In terms of the system of differentiated education the syllabuses in the subjects for the various standards, as in use by the Administration of Coloured Affairs in accordance with those of other education departments in the Republic, are divided as follows—

1. (i) junior primary school phase: Sub-Std. A to Std. 1.
2. (ii) senior primary school phase: Stds. 2 to 4.
3. (iii) junior secondary school phase: Stds. 5 to 7.
4. (iv) senior secondary school phase: Stds. 8 to 10.

The precise scope of the curricula for each type of school is determined by the Minister by regulation, in accordance with the specific requirements of each case.

In accordance with the curricula that apply in the various standards of the mentioned phases, and for the sake of uniform nomenclature for the various types of schools in all the education departments in the Republic and in South West Africa, the following amendment of the definitions in the above Act is deemed necessary—

1. (i) That “primary school” be defined as a school for education up to and including the fifth standard;
2. (ii) that the term “secondary school” be replaced by “junior secondary school”, and that this be defined as a school for education up to and including the seventh standard;
3. (iii) that the term “high school” be replaced by “senior secondary school”, retaining the present definition, viz. a school for education up to and including the tenth standard.

Mention should be made of the fact that the fifth standard is included in the definition of the term “primary school” because pupils in Std. 5 are still accommodated at primary schools, since the present accommodation arrangements require this.

The only other section of this Act in which use is made of the terms “secondary school” and “high school”, is section 3(1)(a) which provides for the establishment, construction and maintenance of schools. The amendment of this article by substituting for the words “high schools” and “secondary schools” the words “senior secondary schools” and “junior secondary schools”, respectively is also essential in order that it may correspond with the amended definition.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this measure. However, I still find it a political tragedy that we should be debating a matter such as education of the Coloured community without them actually having a direct say in the decision-making.

*Mr. Speaker, as I have said, the official Opposition supports the legislation. The hon. the Minister said that the legislation was chiefly concerned with name changes necessitated by the introduction of differentiated education for Coloured persons as well.

However, I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that, apart from the fact that Coloured education, like White education, will now have the correct designation for the various school phases associated with differentiated education, a problem does exist. I want to tell you that there is no danger of this system falling through very easily if adequate facilities are not made available at the schools that will now be designated differently. The hon. the Minister will agree with me that although, in terms of this legislation, justification exists for every existing high school to lay claim to the designation “senior secondary school”, we shall have to accept that such high schools will simply not be able to fulfil the function associated with a “senior secondary school” in the differentiated framework. The most important reason for this is the lack of facilities existing at orthodox high schools, as in terms of the present definition. Therefore the Department of Coloured Education would actually be making a mistake if every existing high school were to be regarded, in terms of the definition, as a “senior secondary school”.

In practice it will not be possible. Today we know that many White departments of education made this mistake as a result of shortsightedness and in many cases because local communities, who were stubborn, would not co-operate. Instead of using the change in name introduced by these amendments for laying a firm foundation for differentiated education, they allowed a golden opportunity to slip through their fingers. There was, for example, the case of a community with two old orthodox high schools. The appropriate thing would have been to convert one high school into a senior secondary school and the other into a junior secondary school. [Interjections.]

†However, by being obstinate and shortsighted in this respect the communities insisted that both be senior secondary schools. In supporting this Bill I sincerely hope—and I want to say this specifically to the hon. the Minister—that he and his department will not fall for this kind of trick. In differentiated education there is both vertical and horizontal differentiation. According to the new definition, a senior secondary school means—

In actual fact, however, it will only be a senior secondary school for the last three standards, Std. 8, 9 and 10. That is the most important phase of the system, and this is the phase that will require careful physical planning. In passing this Bill, we must realize the fact that it serves no purpose merely to say that we have a system of differentiated education. We must also use the correct designations. In future pupils will be accommodated in schools which were designed for the orthodox situation, i.e. the old high schools which are being replaced by the term “senior secondary schools”, in clause 2 for example. In many cases these schools at present cater not only for the last three standards, but in actual fact for the whole high school range—in other words, from Std. 6 to Std. 10. They are schools which are equipped—and having experienced this in White education, we shall not find it strange in Coloured education—to deal with only a limited number of study courses. However, if we want the schools to cater successfully for the diversity of aptitudes, abilities and interests which we shall, naturally, also find in our Coloured pupils, it is necessary to do what is laid down in this Bill. But we must make sure that whenever we have a certain type of school designated as a senior secondary school, that the school will in fact be able to accommodate enough pupils to have viable classes and for various study courses. I know there are many problems involved in this. It is not merely a question of changing the names of schools from high schools to senior secondary schools. The Cape Provincial Administration, for example, experiences great difficulty in its rural areas to implement this system because of small rural communities and large distances. However, when one comes into the metropolitan areas, something imaginative and effective can be done.

So although I support this Bill, I also see the pitfalls. Hon. members must bear in mind my suggestion that when one has two old orthodox high schools, one must not fall into the temptation of changing them both into senior secondary schools. Instead of doing that, rather transform one into a senior secondary school and one into a junior secondary school. In point of fact, the department would be well advised to locate properly equipped senior secondary schools at geographically strategic points. This, of course, is difficult. There is a backlog in accommodation. The hon. the Minister did mention this in connection with the Std. 5 issue. In many respects this backlog is not only the result of the natural increase in population, but also to other political factors such as knocking down schools in order to build new ones.

Where do you read that?

I am just pointing to the backlog which exists and which the hon. the Minister has mentioned.

This brings me to clause 1(c) which provides that a “primary school” will go up to the fifth standard. As it is, the hon. the Minister has conceded that by definition a primary school should go no further than the fourth standard because the differentiated system consists of four three-year phases. In other words, after six years of formal schooling the primary phase ends. The hon. the Minister has mentioned one of the reasons why we are passing a Bill which, strictly speaking, contradicts his motivation for the Bill itself, namely to give effect to differentiated education, because he is still designating one standard as part and parcel of primary school education when, in fact, it should be incorporated in the third phase of the differentiated education system, namely the junior secondary phase which includes Std. 5, 6 and 7. I am prepared to support the hon. the Minister on this too, although strictly speaking it does not make sense in educational terms. One cannot say on the one hand that one is giving effect to differentiated education, while on the other hand still making standard 5 part and parcel of primary education. I am prepared to support this legislation, because it will facilitate accommodation. However, it is not only in Coloured education that we have this problem. White education is also faced with this problem. Another reason why I am also prepared to support this Bill is because as long as there is no effective system of compulsory education, pupils are encouraged to drop out at the end of any particular phase. It is therefore wise to have a system whereby standard 5 is still incorporated in the primary phase, because if it should be transferred to the secondary phase, there would be a tendency, in the absence of effective compulsory education, for pupils to go no further than standard 4. For those reasons I am prepared to support this Bill, although strictly speaking it does not make sense in terms of differentiated education, which is the motivation for this Bill. I would appreciate a firm promise from the hon. the Minister that once we have effective compulsory education beyond six years of formal education—in other words, when there is no danger of anyone dropping out with only a standard 4 qualification—one of our first tasks will be to end the primary phase at standard 4. It will then still be open to the hon. the Minister to make regulations in order to grant exemptions.

Actually, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point strayed from the point somewhat with his misgivings. It is clear to me that he does not have a very good grasp of the realities of the South African situation.

Were you not listening?

Personally, I think that it is of great importance that this amendment Bill should appear on the Statute Book now, since Coloured education, and secondary Coloured education in particular, is at an early stage of development. Personally, I think that it is a good thing that this development of secondary education for Coloured children should be linked with the planning of differentiated education at this stage. At the moment it is very difficult to apply differentiated education in the White community, particularly on the platteland, where the high schools, and the number of school-going children, are small. In the case of Coloured education, however, the situation is very different today. Because it is still at an early stage of development, we are in a position to prevent Coloured high schools being established in every little town and we are in a position to establish junior secondary schools and, as they are now called here, senior secondary schools systematically, where there is a demand for them and where it fits in with the aims of differentiated education. A substantial number of the existing Coloured high schools are at present only junior secondary schools because such a comparatively small number of the pupils do in fact go through to Stds. 8, 9 and 10. These are things which will come in time. The misgivings expressed by the hon. member for Durban Central do not really carry much weight, because existing circumstances make it necessary for the hon. Minister to do certain things, for example he must not now put all Std. 5 pupils in the junior secondary schools

Surely that is what I said.

The hon. member might as well listen now; I listened carefully to him. These problems will solve themselves. The hon. the Minister need not give the hon. member a solemn assurance now that this will be rectified, because we know that it will be rectified in time. However, the circumstances and the available funds have to be taken into account and the facilities must be established gradually as the need for them grows. That is why I think that Coloured education can regard itself as fortunate in that it is able to link up with this new dispensation at this stage. I am sure that in this regard the Coloured community will in time be very glad to be able to link up with this new dispensation gradually as secondary education for Coloureds develops.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister could perhaps have dealt with the possible implications in a little more detail. I can understand the motivation for the necessity of differentiated education as established here. For obvious reasons—which have been mentioned by other hon. members—we in these benches have no objection to this Bill. However, one would have liked to have more information about, for example, what the possible implications are with regard to the backlog, how this is going to affect existing schools, whether there are any implications with regard to the status of teachers at certain schools as far as their salaries are concerned, and so on. It is information of this kind which I want from the hon. the Minister in reply to the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. members opposite who took part in the discussion for their support even though they gave it with a certain degree of hesitation. I think that the hon. member for Piketberg replied fully to the arguments made by the hon. member for Durban Central. It is one thing to argue about this subject in the air and conjure up spectres; however, it is an entirely different matter to know what the situation is in regard to the education of the Coloureds. In this regard both the hon. member for Piketberg and the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central were able, as members of the Theron Commission, to see the full picture. The hon. member for Piketberg was quite correct when he said that it was fortunate for Coloured education that it was able at this early stage of its development to link up with differentiated education. To be specific, Coloured education is in the fortunate position that the senior secondary schools that will be established, will be big schools. Whereas formerly the Administration planned in terms of schools are 600 to 800 pupils, the figure is now closer to a thousand. These are big schools, and they will be adapted to this system with ease. That is why I do not think it is necessary to conjure up spectres as the hon. member for Durban Central has done.

Furthermore, I want to tell the hon. member that this legislation is being introduced at the request of the Coloured Representative Council. That Council itself has the say as regards the implementation of this measure. Those people also want the best for themselves. That is why I cannot see why the hon. member has any misgivings about this.

I have no misgivings about it.

In general I want to say that the terms senior secondary and junior secondary school are terms which will sound strange to all of us. We are used to referring to high schools and secondary schools. It will therefore take us, too, some time to get used to these concepts. However, I do not think that these concepts, which apply at all levels of education, provincial and otherwise, hinder us in view of the benefits which will derive from this system.

I want to tell the hon. member for Rondebosch that I should very much like to furnish him with further information, but that I do not believe that this would be appropriate today. During the discussion of my vote we shall have ample opportunity of getting an overall picture of Coloured education, including the deficiencies that exist, particularly as regards school accommodation. I do not deny that there are such deficiencies. But to have a detailed discussion of this today is probably not appropriate. We may discuss this to advantage on that occasion.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central pointed out that we had no objection to the framework being set up by this Bill. We are happy that the effect of this will be to bring Coloured education in line with, for instance, the educational system of the Whites. I think it is wise that it should be so. In fact, this legislation merely enforces what is in effect already happening. For that reason it is a good thing. However, as far as the implementation of this is concerned, the hon. the Minister will have to think very seriously about providing more funds than was provided in the past to be able to implement effectively what is proposed in this legislation.

What worries me considerably is to find, in answer to a question in this House, how much money has been set aside for school buildings during the past financial year. The figure I was given was in the region of R15 million. When I asked how much of that amount had actually been spent by 31 January of this year, I was alarmed to find that only R7 million had been spent. For some reason or other, even although Parliament has set aside funds to be spent, it has not been spent. As the hon. the Minister will know, one of the most serious problems in Coloured education is the backlog in the provision of facilities. He knows how many double-shift classes there are and he knows to what extent classes are overcrowded. But I think it is of grave concern that when this Parliament agrees to spend R15 million in a financial year, only R7 million had been spent by the end of January.

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

I am just trying to help the hon. the Minister, to see that this Bill is carried out.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central really wants to help me, I am very grateful for it, but I must say, as you have ruled, Sir, that this is not the occasion to discuss the financial aspects of the matter.

*I should just like to thank the hon. members for their support of the Bill at its Third Reading.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The first part of this amending Bill deals with the introduction of the system of differentiated education, which I have already explained in my speech on the Bill amending the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963 (Act 47 of 1963).

As far as the second part is concerned, I should like to mention that in view of the fact that section 10 of the principal Act provides that the power to appoint anyone to a teaching post, or to promote or transfer such a person, is vested in the Minister, who consequently has the power to determine his salary or starting salary within the relevant scale.

The Public Service Commission has indicated that, in terms of a legal opinion, it no longer wishes to have the power in terms of section 13(1) of the principal Act to make a recommendation regarding the determination of a person’s starting salary within the approved scale, and has consequently requested that section 13(1) of the principal Act be amended so that the power is entrusted to the Minister concerned.

However, the Public Service Commission still retains the power to determine a recommendation on the salary scale for posts in the various grades.

It will consequently be necessary to delete the word “salaries” where it occurs in section 13(1) of the principal act. This will result in the determination of the starting salaries of individuals being vested in the Minister. For that reason the word “salaries” has to be inserted in section 36(f) of the Coloured Persons in South West Africa Education Act, and the Basters of Rehoboth Education Act and in section 37(e) of the Nama in South West Africa Education Act.

Mr. Speaker, the first two clauses, as the hon. the Minister has said, deal with differentiated education, and I do not want to repeat my previous arguments. To do so would be to no wail in any event, because the hon. member for Piketberg is hardly likely to listen attentively when I repeat them. He will continue misinterpreting me when I want to assist the hon. the Minister and offer him a very good excuse as to why he should do certain things. The hon. member said I only tried to put obstacles in his way.

†Sir, when we look at clauses 3 and 4, I find it strange that the Minister says that it is only recently that the Public Service Commission said they did not want this power whereas this Bill more or less brings the position in line with the Coloured Persons Education Act. That has been the situation for years. I think we must have a closer look at the changes which clauses 3 and 4 seek to bring about. Once again for the benefit of the hon. member for Piketberg, I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister to what advantage he can use the changes which are envisaged in clauses 3 and 4. As clause 3 reads, the position is quite clear that the responsibility of the Public Service Commission goes no further than determining the salary scales. In the past, the determination of the actual notch of the salary scale at which a teacher should be appointed, was also the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. The hon. the Minister had no free hand in that regard. In consultation with the Minister of Finance, the Public Service Commission had to recommend the notch at which the teacher could be appointed. The whole position is now being changed, and henceforth the hon. the Minister will in terms of clause 4 be empowered to determine the commencing notch of a teacher within the prescribed salary scale. The hon. the Minister has therefore gained great freedom. The attitude of our party is quite clear when it comes to the Public Service Commission and its powers in regard to education, whether White, Black or Coloured. We believe that there should be separation, because the problem has all along been salaries and salary scales.

I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to make use of the wonderful opportunity which is now being created by the Bill. In fact, there is already scope for him to act, scope which we do not find in the legislation pertaining to the education of Whites. The hon. the Minister is now in the position to do something real, something positive, something concrete about closing the wage gap in respect of minimum commencing salaries. He cannot do anything about the top notches of the scales, because that would be beyond the Bill. For years we and the Coloureds have heard that the wage gap will be closed, and now the hon. the Minister is being given far greater freedom, the ball is in his court. It takes a Coloured teacher who has the same qualification as a White teacher several years to progress along his salary scale before he reaches the notch equivalent to the commencing salary of the White teacher. If the hon. the Minister so desires, he can now use his power to promulgate regulations which will bring about an equation. We can draw comparisons as far as six categories of teachers are concerned, i.e. the M+1 to M+6. If we consider the salary scales for male teachers, we find that as far as the commencing salaries are concerned, there is a difference ranging between R720 in the case of M+2, which is the smallest range and R960 in the case of M+4, which is the scale applicable to graduate teachers. It is really a tragedy that the greatest disadvantage should be at the level of graduate teachers of whom there is such a shortage. Why there should be such a difference, I cannot understand. When we consider salary scales for female teachers, we also find that the greatest difference in commencing salaries occurs in the salary scales applicable to graduate teachers. The difference is R840 a year.

I am not objecting to the power he is asking for here. I am only too pleased to give him this power. I should have liked to have seen (the Minister of National Education) having this power also in respect of White teachers. He has had the power for years as far as the education of the Coloureds is concerned in South Africa and is now going to get it also in respect of the education of Coloureds in South West Africa.

The hon. the Minister must not be afraid. I think the country can afford this. It is well within the means of our financial resources. All we have to do, is to make a detailed analysis to see what the situation is and to make a calculation on how many teachers we have falling within these categories. We must then determine what the financial implications will be if we did what I suggested.

Let us look at the position in so far as the number of graduate Coloured teachers in South West Africa is concerned. Perhaps the hon. the Minister has the figures. I only have the figures for South Africa and South West Africa together. I honestly believe that the ratio in South West Africa will be more or less the same as it is for South Africa. As far as minimum salaries are concerned, the Coloured teachers in the M+4 category are the ones who could get immediate relief from the hon. the Minister as the result of the passing of the Bill. Out of 20 000 Coloured teachers in South Africa as a whole, there are only 700, i.e. 3,5%, who fall into this category. One can therefore assume that the ratio will be approximately the same in South West Africa. These are the Coloured teachers who can benefit by this legislation. Although the hon. the Minister cannot regulate salary scales by means of regulation he will be able, as he quite correctly pointed out, to determine the exact commencing notch of the salary scale on which the teachers in category M+4 can be appointed. It is now within the hon. the Minister’s power to determine that the 3,5% Coloured teachers who fall within the category M+4 should not start on a scale which is R916 below the scale for Whites with the same qualifications. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to determine that the Coloureds should start on the same commencing notch. This is the immediate relief the hon. the Minister can bring to these people. The putting into effect of such a regulation will have a negligible effect on the economy.

Let us have a look at the categories M +1 to M+3—the categories into which teachers with qualifications higher than matric fall. Once again one will find that there are not thousands involved. Of the 20 000 in South Africa as a whole, only 6 000 fall into the categories I have mentioned. This is about 30%. All the hon. the Minister has to do to help this 30%, is to determine the differences in the commencing notches in terms of the provisions of the Bill. At the moment we expect a Coloured teacher with the same qualifications as his White counterpart, gradually to climb up the scale until eventually, after several years of teaching, he reaches the commencing notch on which the White teacher had started. Clause 3 now has a provision that the hon. the Minister need not act in this regard on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Neither will he in future have to act after consultation with the Minister of Finance. The provision which compelled the hon. the Minister to do this in the past is now falling away, and I am very pleased about it. All the hon. the Minister has to do now is to issue a regulation in terms of clause 4 of the Bill, a regulation about, as it is stated here, salaries, promotions, etc. The hon. the Minister can also determine the exact notch on which persons will be appointed.

Order! I do want to suggest that the hon. member must not confuse salary scales under clause 3 with salaries under clause 4.

No, Mr. Speaker …

I suggest that the hon. member is doing this.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I want to say that I do not want to touch upon the question of salary scales, because I cannot talk about it. I only want to speak about the notch—die “kerf”—of the salary scale about which the hon. the Minister now, in terms of the amendment to section 36, has the power to do something. I am trying to indicate to the hon. the Minister how easy it will be for him to put this into effect. I have made calculations on maximum and minimum projections, and I have calculated that it can be done. The highest projection would be R10 million for the whole of South Africa to bring about equation, or R2 million if one were to work on a minimum projection. If the hon. the Minister should do this—we have heard a lot about détente in recent times—it will give him a wonderful opportunity to bring about detente at home. We have heard a lot about good intentions and about moving away from discrimination. Here is a wonderful opportunity for the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs to move away from discrimination within the framework of separate development.

This is the reason why I am very pleased to say that I support the Bill, and I anxiously await the reactions of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I find the helpful state of mind of the hon. member for Durban Central overwhelming, and far be it from me to mar this jovial atmosphere. Therefore I want to say that I have no objection to the Bill. It is in fact in all respects, except clauses 3 and 4, the same as the previous legislation. The ensuing legislation will also be the same as this legislation. Consequently I am giving notice at this early stage already that I shall merely rise to say that I have no objection to the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to compliment the hon. member for Rondebosch on having a far better understanding of this amendment Bill than the hon. member for Durban Central. That was why the hon. member said what he wanted to say in a few words. The hon. member for Durban Central, however, made such a wide detour that you, Sir, were concerned about whether he really understood what was stated in the Bill. At times, however, the hon. member was on target. The easiest thing to say is that this concerns a power which the Public Service Commission will no longer have, i.e. the power to decide on what notch a person shall be appointed. In future the Minister or his delegate will decide this. However, the hon. member wanted to play to the gallery a little. He wanted to imply that I would be able to use this legislation to do certain other things—a popular thing to hold up in in public while one does not have the responsibility of taking the financial implications of this into consideration, and also if one does not have the responsibility of taking into consideration the effect of this on the salary ratios within the same department for teachers who have been there for a number of years. I think the hon. member understands what is at issue here, because he has made this clearly apparent on a few occasions. But he could not resist the temptation to play to the gallery. Still, I thank those hon. members very much for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The explanations which I have furnished in respect of the two previous amendment Bills, i.e. the Coloured Persons Education Amendment Bill and the Coloured Persons in South West Africa Education Amendment Bill, also apply to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, since I am now becoming convinced that the hon. the Minister appreciates what is involved, and understands what I am advocating so well, and since the percentages for the Rehoboth Basters are the same as those in respect of the Coloureds in South West Africa and the Coloureds in South Africa, I am rising to state formally that we support the amendment Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is now becoming more and more difficult for me to make a shorter speech than the hon. member for Durban Central. I am simply rising to say that we have no objection to the amendment Bill.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The explanations which I have furnished in respect of the previous three amendment Bills are also applicable to this one, and I content myself with this.

Mr. Speaker, the official Opposition supports the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we also support it.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.