Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us is a very brief one, but it is also a very important one, dealing as it does with a growing population of aged persons in South Africa. It is important to note, from the latest report of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions for the period 1972-’74, that as far as South Africa’s White population is concerned, the percentage of aged persons in homes for the aged is higher than in most other developed countries. Here we are dealing with a piece of legislation which has as its fundamental thrust or principle an attempt to protect the aged against exploitation. The hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech on Friday pointed to the incidence of exploitation and potential exploitation. It is a matter of real tragedy that this kind of protective legislation should even be necessary. We know, however, that there are people who will use any opportunity to further their own ends, even at the expense of those who are unable to protect themselves. Here one thinks especially of small children and, of course, the aged as well. One is grateful, therefore, that this Bill provides that additional protection. Firstly, it makes it possible for inspectors and other officials to visit and to inspect not only those institutions which are registered, but unregistered institutions as well. It also makes it clear that anyone found to be neglecting of exploiting the aged will be guilty of an offence. I am sure that there is no member in this House who will not agree that it is essential that those who are guilty of such exploitation should be most severely punished. We support the increased powers given by this Bill and we support its Second Reading.

I should like to refer briefly to some of the developments which have taken place in this field, because one seldom has an opportunity in the House to devote any time at all to geriatrics and the care of the aged. The subject of the care of the aged is receiving far greater attention today than at any other time. The advance of medical science means that people are, on the average, living longer. One therefore simply has to give more time, more manpower and more finance to the care of the aged. I would suggest that geriatrics is now at the stage at which paediatrics was about 25 years ago. At that time, in the medical profession and generally, children were regarded as little adults and were cared for in that kind of way. Of course, things are very different today. Paediatrics has become a highly specialized science and area of medical care. I submit that geriatrics is beginning to move in the same direction. Old or elderly people are not merely old adults. This is a very highly specialized area of service. Of course we have to have homes for the aged, and we have a number of them in many parts of the country.

In many other parts of the world, however, and to an extent here in South Africa as well, there is a move away from that towards what may be termed a community based domiciliary care. If one looks at page 39 of the recent departmental report to which I referred earlier, one is gratified and encouraged to read of the step which was taken in 1971 by the department, i.e. the establishment of an entirely new scheme for the housing of the aged. This scheme provides for the erection of local authorities, welfare organizations and utility companies, of group housing comprising specially adapted flatlets for elderly married couples and single persons. That scheme was instituted sometime ago, and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister, in introducing legislation which to an extent is negative—in other words, a protective measure—will also do his utmost, as I am sure he will, to expedite this scheme which was introduced in May 1971. Since the scheme was introduced applications have been approved for 60 such projects with a total of 752 double and 1 795 single flats. Some of these projects have been completed, but according to this report, most are still, five years later, in the planning or construction stage. It has been found by the department that there is a particular need for flats for single people, mainly for widows. The co-operation of officials, welfare organizations and other institutions in the case of the aged is to be encouraged. However, I want to suggest that we go even further. When one thinks of the inflation one faces today, one realizes the need to increase productivity by making the best possible use of all our available sources. And when one thinks of the enormous skills and experience which is locked up in the minds and lives of many of our senior citizens, something which we should seriously consider in our attempt to care for and administer to the aged in South Africa, is the creation of an employment agency in order to avoid aged people lapsing into senile decay, as so often happens, but to allow them to retain their independence for as long as possible and continue to serve the country as they have done in the past. We welcome this legislation and support its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, when we think of debilitated persons, hon. members will certainly agree with me when I say that this is a growing problem. It is not that we want to reject debilitated aged persons who cannot look after themselves. Unfortunately there is an enormous increase in numbers as far as these aged persons are concerned. Unfortunately we also have the phenomenon that the children are no longer inclined, out of gratitude for what their parents have done for them, to care for their parents we used to care for our parents, especially if the old people are in a condition where they need some extra treatment.

As I have said, this is becoming a growing problem. To illustrate this, I can tell hon. members that the number of ordinary aged persons in subsidized old-age homes has increased by 13%—from 5 300 to 6 200 during the period 1970-’74. On the other hand, the number of debilitated aged persons has increased by 186%—from 2 050 to 6 350 during the same period. The considerable increase in the number of debilitated aged persons can certainly be ascribed to many causes.

Hon. members on both sides of the House will certainly agree with me when I say that the Government has a proud record as far as caring for its aged persons is concerned. As has been said by the hon. member for Pinelands, this is being done to such an extent that proportionately more aged persons are being cared for in old-age homes in South Africa than in most other developed countries of the world.

Aged persons have always occupied a special place in our society. This is perhaps one of the subjects one could discuss in very sentimental terms especially when it comes to the debilitated aged persons who are neglected. It is unfortunately a fact that the Government cannot care of all of them in institutions and that many of the old people therefore live in private institutions. I want to say immediately that we are grateful towards the people who are doing such excellent work in the private institutions without their having any other thought in mind than to render a service. However, it is also a fact that, unfortunately, we sometimes come across unscrupulous people who exploit and maltreat aged persons who are destitute. For that reason we are grateful that the hon. the Deputy Minister has introduced this amending Bill to protect and promote the interests of probably the most destitute people. We particularly welcome the amending Bill, because it is being envisaged to have inspections carried out without unnecessary delays at unregistered institutions where the motive to make a profit is more important than the motive to render a service. In the implementation of this legislation we should not merely be looking for offences.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister that some guidance be given to the aged persons in such unregistered institutions during inspections. We are dealing here with the most uniformed and helpless people when it comes to the services they are entitled to. For instance I have in mind here free medical services which they are entitled to. They are afraid that when they receive medical treatment and have to acquire medicine, they would be held responsible for those accounts or that the people who run the institution would be held responsible for such accounts. It is these people who are the loneliest and most destitute people and who have no one to whom they are able to complain. For that reason I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister that such inspections should not only be aimed at looking for offences, but should also be used to give guidance to prevent aged persons from being neglected unnecessarily.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. members for Umbilo, Pinelands and Boksburg for supporting this Bill and for what they have said. There is not very much I have to reply to. In reply to the question about the 10-year period which the hon. member for Umbilo put to me, I want to tell him that this resulted from a complaint which was received in connection with a place of care in the Benoni area where a magistrate, in his judgment, stated that he was unsure as to whether he could grant a period of more than three years. We think that to impose a sentence which will be almost indefinite in that it exceeds a period of ten years, would perhaps be unfair and that conditions could change in a period of 10 years. That is why we are suggesting a period of 10 years.

Would five years not be sufficient?

It could be, but I take it that the people passing judgment, in their wisdom, will be as lenient as possible. However, if there is a repetition of this kind of thing, then I think we should give them the power to extend it to ten years.

I want to thank the hon. member for Pinelands for his support. He has rightly pointed out all the problems that we shall be faced with in future and those which we are at present already facing. As I said during the Second Reading, we intend introducing legislation next year which will cover a wide field, including the aspects which he raised.

*As far as the hon. member for Boksburg is concerned, I want to tell him that I am pleased about the suggestion he made, because I should not like this Bill being regarded only as an attempt to prosecute people. It is, after all, a fact that welfare work in South Africa, more than any other work, shows that a service is being rendered by the people to the people. It would be a pity if the tendency for people to render services themselves by means of welfare organizations, and soon, were to disappear and that people are going to be afraid of rendering services for fear of being prosecuted. For that reason I should like to assure the hon. member for Boksburg that we shall most certainly instruct our inspectors not only to look for things that might be wrong in both unregistered homes and registered homes, but, as far as possible, also to furnish old people and those caring for them, with advice and guidance on what they are entitled to.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the powers of inspection. The hon. the Deputy Minister, in the course of his reply to the Second Reading debate, indicated that it was not the intention of the department to discourage persons who are providing some form of accommodation for aged or debilitated persons. In terms of this clause the word “registered” is to be deleted and certain other words are to be incorporated whereby the social welfare officer will have the right at any time to visit or inspect any home. This therefore refers not only to a registered home, but also to an unregistered home where any aged persons are being accommodated or where any provision is being made for their care. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether the interpretation of this clause means that there will be no limitation as far as the number of persons who are being accommodated, is concerned. The position has been that a person would have to be accommodating more than eight or 10 persons, or a specific number of persons, before he could really be considered as merely accommodating for remuneration of a certain category or type of person. In terms of this clause it would appear that even if one person is being accommodated at one private home, the social welfare officer will have the right at any time to visit and inspect that home and also have the powers referred to in the latter sections of this clause in terms of which he can demand any documents which a person might have in regard to an aged or debilitated person who may be accommodated in that home. I therefore wish to ask whether there is any limitation in regard to the powers of inspection being provided for in this clause before a person can be classified as actually providing a home or a place for the care of the aged.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to reply briefly to the hon. member’s question by saying that the problem which we are faced with is not primarily the number of persons affected by ill-treatment or lack of treatment. One may at one stage have 10 persons accommodated at a home. Nine may then leave, and one may be compelled to stay for some reason. That is why we do not specify the number of persons to be accommodated. I am also informed that, whereas in the case of homes for children all these homes have to be registered, there is some uncertainty as to whether the welfare board can refuse to register certain of these welfare organizations. Therefore, the position may arise where two or three people are accommodated at one stage and that their numbers may rise to 10 the very next day. This could happen in a private home as well and therefore we also want the powers to inspect those homes.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, this clause contains the definitions which will apply throughout this Bill when it becomes an Act. It is from this clause that we get a clue as to what exactly the hon. the Minister is asking for. The hon. the Minister will recollect that during the Second Reading debate on this measure, I did raise with him the confusion that exists, as we see it, through this Bill, regarding certain provisions which refer to proclaimed areas and other provisions which do not mention proclaimed areas at all. It would appear that there are provisions in this Bill which will apply only to certain areas, while there are other provisions which will apply throughout the Republic, in other words, irrespective of whether those areas are proclaimed or not.

In terms of definition (xxii) a “proclaimed area” is “any area which the State President may from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette declare to be a proclaimed area for the purposes of this Act”. Unfortunately the hon. the Minister was precluded from replying fully to me during the Second Reading debate, and so I would like to refresh his memory by pointing out that it appears that, in terms of clause 10, the hon. the Minister may prohibit the erection of an abattoir within a proclaimed area. However, I find no provision whereby he will be enabled to prohibit or in any way control the erection of an abattoir in any other area. Similarly clause 13 allows the hon. the Minister to control the alterations which may be made to an abattoir within a controlled area, but no control whatsoever exists outside the proclaimed area. He may direct the corporation to take over an abattoir in a proclaimed area. He may issue orders which owners of abattoirs in proclaimed areas will have to comply with, but he may also prohibit the use of an abattoir anywhere; not only in a proclaimed area, but anywhere. He may also direct the closure of an abattoir anywhere in the Republic, and South West Africa, incidentally. He may direct the corporation to erect an abattoir anywhere in the Republic, not only in proclaimed areas. He can fix tariffs for any abattoir in the Republic, not only in the proclaimed areas, and he may of course direct the commission to conduct an inquiry regarding abattoirs anywhere within the Republic. This last provision we can accept. Finally, he may impose levies in respect of abattoirs, not only on those within a proclaimed area, but also on those outside.

This has led to quite a lot of confusion, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could tell us what his thoughts are on this matter. [Interjections.] My hon. friend reminds me that you can have an inquiry into any abattoir, whether it is in a proclaimed area or outside it. Now, the first question is: What does the hon. the Minister envisage will be the areas which will be proclaimed? Are they to conform to the present controlled areas in terms of the meat scheme? It is really his intention that any person may erect an abattoir outside of these proclaimed areas without any let or hindrance, with no “by your leave” from anybody?

Because that would appear to be the situation as far as the erection is concerned. I know that as far as the operation is concerned, that abattoir owner will have to comply with the Animal Meat Products and Hygiene Act. But there appears to be confusion, that there will be no control over the erection of abattoirs outside the proclaimed areas, and of course, coupled with this is the whole question of registration. Nowhere do we find any provision here for the registration of abattoirs. Will the hon. the Minister know what is going on outside the proclaimed areas if he has no control over the erection and, secondly, he has no provision for the registration of abattoirs? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can throw some light on this particular subject.

Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. member will look at this thing in practice, he will see that nobody is prepared to erect an abattoir today because of the costs. As I have told hon. members, with the exception of Maitland in Cape Town, none of the municipalities are prepared to carry on with the operation of abattoirs. Now, we did not spell it out in this clause although we can do so if that will make the hon. member happy. The position is if you want to erect an abattoir today in the controlled areas, you must get a permit from the Meat Board. Under the scheme that we have to prevent overtrading, we could not allow people even when the erection of abattoirs was still economical, with cheaper steel and cement, etc., to erect abattoirs without obtaining a permit from the Meat Board.

*The requirement still exists today. If a new man wishes to erect an abattoir in the controlled area, he has to obtain a permit for it. We have made an evaluation of what the abattoir requirements are and we have given private permits to five companies, but not one of them has built. They obtained it two years ago. They all say that the building costs are too high today, and therefore we are spending the R24 million, through the Abattoir Commission, to build the City Deep abattoir which will be finished by August. Therefore this is no problem in practice. The hon. member says we have no registration. That is so. We do not want to register small abattoirs, because they usually are in the hands of small municipalities and they fall under the Hygiene Act, where the hygiene inspection of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services applies to them. For what purpose should we register? What is the use of registering an abattoir at Nylstroom, for example? It will not assist us in any way and it will not simplify things.

†The question is whether we must impose a levy. The levies are imposed to help the municipality which is still busy with an abattoir, to cover the costs. If they say that they want a levy in a non-controlled area, because it is an abattoir which cannot show a profit, then we have the power under this legislation to help them to impose levies to pay for the cost of the operation of the abattoir.

That is the tariff, not the levy.

Yes, it is the tariff. The tariff is applicable to cover the cost of the abattoir. I believe we shall always be prepared in future to make an amendment, if some of the objections raised by hon. members should prove to be real and should hamper the application of the Act. If perhaps I do not quite understand the hon. member at the moment, he may tell me later and I could change it in the Other Place as well. Perhaps he is seeing a point which I have not noticed. But I am not so stupid that I cannot understand what he means.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to one little point which is in the latest report of the Secretary for the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, the latest report I have access to. With regard to abattoirs, the following is said—

I believe that is the aim of the hon. member behind me. When I speak about control, I do not mean that every little thing that people do should be looked into, but control in the interests of our meat industry in the country. Because difficulty has been experienced up to now in contacting everyone, just in South West Africa, the hon. the Minister must be very sure that we know which abattoirs he is referring to. Is it just those in the proclaimed areas? If that is so, is it not necessary to go a bit further? Therefore I can believe the hon. the Minister would be wise to give a little more consideration to this matter and then, if it is necessary, to change this legislation in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. The hon. member referred to South West Africa because of the report. But in South West Africa the Meat Board does not operate the way it operates in the Republic.

But I am not speaking about the Meat Board. I am speaking about the Abattoir Commission.

Yes, but then there is the question of registration of the erection of new abattoirs. We could perhaps make the amendments. I shall go into the matter and if I find that there would be practical problems without the amendments, those amendments could be introduced.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, section 4 of the Act of 1964 lays down very clearly what the functions and the powers of this commission are. I pointed out to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate that an important aspect had been omitted in the proposed legislation. I am referring to the fact that the commission is also intended to render financial assistance for studies and research with regard to abattoirs. I see that this function does not appear in clause 3 of the Bill. As far as I can remember, the hon. the Minister has not even given us an explanation about that particular point. As far as I am concerned, this is surely one of the most important functions of such a commission. Surely it should encourage study and research and, if necessary, it should also make available the necessary bursaries to the universities, especially for post-graduate study in this field. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister why this function is not being taken over from the old commission. If he still wants that function to be fulfilled, in terms of which clause in this legislation will it be possible?

Mr. Chairman, the powers of this new corporation in terms of clause 28 are so wide as far as the application of its funds is concerned that it will also be able to provide bursaries. We might have mentioned that point specifically, but the legal advisers are of the opinion that it has already been covered.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, we are dealing here with a clause which provides for the constitution of the commission. It provides for the fact that the hon. the Minister, on his own, acting entirely in vacuo—he need not consult with anyone else, let alone take their advice—may appoint from three to five persons to serve on what would be the Abattoir Commission of the future. During the Second Reading debate I did raise the question of the tremendous burden and responsibility which the hon. the Minister is taking on his shoulders in this particular Bill. No longer is he establishing a commission which is going to do anything. It is going to be a commission with solely an advisory function. It has no executive function at all. Who is going to benefit from the establishment of this particular commission? I believe that the persons who will benefit most will be the meat producers.

And the consumers.

The meat producers are primarily going to benefit from this. The consumers will benefit to a degree, but basically it is the meat producer who is going to get the benefit from this. As testimony, I want to point out the fact that, if one goes through this Bill as we shall be doing today, one will find that it is the beef producer, i.e. the farmer, who is going to pay for this commission, and no one else. Because of that, I believe the meat producer should in some way be recognized in the establishment of this commission. I believe it is only fair that an organization representing all the meat producers in the country should have the opportunity of nominating at least one person to serve on this commission for the Minister. There is only one body I know of that is representative of all the meat producers, whether it be mutton, pork or beef. I refer to the S. A. Agricultural Union. I believe that, when the hon. the Minister constitutes the commission, he should consult with the Meat Commodity Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union.

If I may digress for one moment, I think the S.A. Agricultural Union has for too long been ignored in our legislation. I believe we should give recognition to that body in our legislation since it represents all the producers in the country, whether they be meat producers or any other primary producers. For that reason I move as an amendment—

If my amendment is accepted, clause 4(1) will read as follows—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South says that the S.A. Agricultural Union has been ignored for too long.

In legislation.

Yes, in legislation. The hon. member will recall that on Friday I withdrew a Bill that was before Parliament. The reason why I withdrew it was that I could not come to an agreement with the S.A. Agricultural Union. That was the only reason. The disagreement was over a small technical point.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member says the farmer is going to have to pay for the levies, the erection of abattoirs, etc. I told him last Friday that in determining the floor price for beef, mutton and pork, all cost increases to the farmer are taken into consideration. Such cost increases are added to the floor price. That serves as a protection for the farmer to produce. In effect, if the price goes below the floor price, the Meat Board buys it in. Consequently, I think the hon. member is completely wrong when he says the farmer is going to pay for all these expenses.

Do you mean you are going to put up the price to the consumer?

Now the hon. member wants to play politics. I know him.

The Meat Board is a control board in terms of the Marketing Act. Its powers are defined in that Act. The control board’s jurisdiction is limited to those matters to which its scheme authorizes it. If the function which it has as far as abattoirs are concerned, is assigned to this board by means of special legislation, it will mean that on the one hand the board will be carrying out its scheme and on the other hand will have to apply the Abattoir Act. Whatever the position of the S.A. Agricultural Union may be, it nominates a member of the Meat Board to serve on this body. This is the very difficulty we have, because the Meat Board is a producers’ board and the majority of the members of the Meat Board rightly are producers—this is why we have such a good Marketing Act. The producers are in the majority on all the control boards. The Meat Board exercises marketing control only at public abattoirs in the controlled areas. Abattoir control, on the other hand, is country-wide and includes South West Africa, where the Meat Board has no jurisdiction in any event. I want to accept that what the hon. member said is correct, but this commission has to operate not only in the Republic but also in South West Africa. In what sort of situation is a man placed if he has to serve on this commission?

At present the State has immense financial interest in the erection of new abattoirs. To secure the State’s financial interests, direct control by the Minister, as proposed, would be preferable to control by an autonomous body such as the Meat Board. To be specific, the Meat Board would be involved in the matter of taking decisions. It is well-known that control boards, because of their composition, sometimes have sectional interests. I have been speaking of the Meat Board only, but the hon. member will probably understand what I mean. The Meat Board, or the S.A. Agricultural Union, asked me whether a particular member could not be defined in the Act. I do not want to be bound in respect of which people I may appoint. There are sectional interests in the Meat Board. If I were to ask the S.A. Agricultural Union for nominations, as the hon. member suggested, and the Union were to nominate a person serving on the Meat Board, it would create problems for me.

This whole matter has been thrashed out by the De Villiers Commission of Inquiry. After thorough consideration, that commission recommended that we draft up legislation in its present form. The composition of the proposed commission recommended by the commission of inquiry is exactly the same as the composition embodied in the Bill. The hon. member may call for a division on this clause today. He may bring about that I do not want to consult the S.A. Agricultural Union about this Bill. If there is anyone with whom I co-operate most cordially, it is the S.A. Agricultural Union. Do not let us have a division on this and do not let the hon. member say afterwards, “He is ignoring the S.A. Agricultural Union.” Truly, if he does say this, he is lying in his teeth. [Interjections.] I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I apologize.

Taking everything into consideration, with the practical application of this in mind, I unfortunately cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. When we walked in here, he gave me a whole lot of amendments he intended moving. He did not warn me beforehand. I have taken a quick glance at them and see that I shall be able to accept many of them. I want to ask the hon. member not to insist on this amendment, because it will make things difficult for me.

Mr. Chairman, we can understand the hon. the Minister’s predicament in respect of this matter.

Rather call it “difficulty”.

Very well, call it “difficulty”. Here in the House you create all the words; but we also create them from time to time, if necessary. The hon. the Minister must understand that our proposal is very fair. We do not ask the hon. the Minister to consult the Meat Board in connection with this matter. We simply ask that he consult the Meat Commodity Committee of the S.A. Agricultural Union in this matter.

It is a pea from the same pod.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South’s amendment reads as follows—

If the hon. the Minister wants us to give him a panel from which he may choose, if he wants more than one name from which to choose, we are prepared to change it in this way. This body is involved in the industry and is intimately concerned with it. This body will naturally know the meat industry from top to bottom and does not have sectional interests as the Meat Board may have. This committee is representative of the producers. Why does the hon. Minister not want to consult it in this? This body need not nominate one person only which the hon. the Minister must then appoint. We are prepared to accept that the committee should submit a few names and should ensure that the people nominated by it do not have sectional interests, but producers’ interests. We ask the hon. the Minister to reflect on this type of thing. In the past we have found that it does not get the hon. gentleman anywhere simply to say that he co-operates very easily and well with the S.A. Agricultural Union. We accept that this is the case. But if he co-operates so well with them, he should at least grant recognition to these people. If he does this, he will prove not only that he does co-operate with them, but also that he is prepared to make their influence and opinions felt in a body like this. This is what we are asking the hon. gentleman to do in this amendment. If he does not want to do it, good and well. The hon. the Minister wants to enter into a kind of agreement with us, because he says there are many amendments which he may possibly accept. However, he has not said which amendments. He is being clever by not saying which he will accept. He does not have to accept the one which we have just moved; he must simply indicate his willingness to reconsider it with a view to accepting it or otherwise in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to look at it if the hon. members suggest a panel of five. However, they must not forget what I said on a previous occasion, namely that there is R32 million at stake at Cato Ridge. The abattoirs of Springs, Brakpan, Benoni, Germiston, Pretoria—the lot—have all been passed on and now come on the account of the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore the farmers accept that this is a function which has passed into the hands of the State. The State must accept responsibility, and consequently I have to give an account to the Minister of Finance of what happens to the money. However, I am not unreasonable, and if the hon. members suggest a panel of five, I shall look at it and we may possibly move an amendment in the Other Place which will satisfy the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the hon. members who support the amendment, that the composition of the Meat Board is such that the Agricultural Union has a say there in any event. I think the hon. members should check by whom members who are producers are nominated and submit the panel of names to the Minister. I think that they will then be satisfied that the Agricultural Union does in any event have the principal say as far as producing members of the Meat Board are concerned. Consequently I cannot see why one should go further and give the Agricultural Union representation on the Commission. I think that it is sufficiently represented as it is. The Agricultural Union is perfectly happy as far as this matter is concerned. It is not a problem to them. I therefore do not know where the hon. members have come by this point. I think there is sufficient representation as it is.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet does not grasp the matter at all. It is not a question of whether or not the hon. the Minister acknowledges the S.A. Agricultural Union. It is not a question of whether he works smoothly with them or not. I accept that he does, because I know that he does. I have had the privilege of serving in the commission and hearing evidence from the Union and hearing how well they do work together. The point that I want to make is that I believe that the time has come to give them recognition in our legislation; not just through the good heart of the hon. the Minister, who says he is prepared to consult them. I should like to see it written into the Bill. The hon. the Minister said that he does not want to be tied, although he is quite prepared to discuss matters with the Agricultural Union. He says he is quite prepared to accept their advice about whom he should put on the commission. Only he does not want to be tied. We feel that his successor might not be so popular with the Agricultural Union or the Agricultural Union might not be so popular with his successor and we want to tie his successor also. I believe that we must give the Union this recognition. I know that the Government recognizes them and I know that the Government consults with them. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet correctly stated that the Union has a large say on whom are appointed as the producers’ representatives on the Meat Board. However, again he brings in the Meat Board. We have not mentioned the Meat Board here at all and we do want to have that board mentioned. We do not want the Meat Board recognized in this connection at all. The hon. member replied to the hon. the Minister. He mentioned the Meat Board. We referred to the meat commodity committee of the S. A. Agricultural Union, which is the body which is most representative of all the primary producers of meat in this country.

The hon. the Minister said that he would consider a panel of five names. It is for that very reason that I chose my words very carefully when I drafted the amendment and speak of “a nominee”—“ ’n genomineerde” en nie “die genomineerde” nie. I did not say the nominee, which would imply that they can say “this is the man” and the Minister is tied. They should be able to put up a panel of names, and one of the people whom they suggest should be appointed to the board. However, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he will have another look at this, that he will have another thought before the Bill goes to the Senate. With that undertaking by the hon. the Minister, I withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5:

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

1. (1) On page 9, to omit subsection (4);
2. (2) on page 9, in line 23, to omit “or(4) ”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7:

Mr. Chairman, I refer to subsection (1)(f), which deals with the retirement from office of a member of the commission upon his election as a member of the Senate, the House of Assembly, a provincial council or the Legislative Assembly of South West Africa. I wish to move as an amendment—

The effect of this amendment is that a member who is elected to a local authority will also be retired from office. In this country we have large local authorities which are concerned with abattoirs. I refer to the local authorities of places like Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria, etc. If one is retired from the commission if one is elected a member of the Senate, this House or a provincial council, then I believe that it is as important that one should also vacate one’s office when one is elected to one of the larger municipalities.

I accept your amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to oppose the amendment.

Why then rise at all?

I do not know why the hon. the Deputy Minister is so noisy. We are not opposing this Bill; the hon. the Deputy Minister should sit back and enjoy it. Subsection (2) reads—

This is a bald statement. We on this side are quite prepared to accept and acknowledge the fact that if a commissioner is to be removed, he should be removed by the State President. We are also prepared to acknowledge the fact that the State President should have the right to remove a commissioner. However, I wonder if the hon. the Minister can tell us under what circumstances he anticipates that a commissioner should be removed from office. There are provisions in subsection (1) in terms of which, if the commissioner does anything wrong or if anything goes wrong, including being elected to this place for instance, he will vacate his office automatically. But it is obvious that the hon. the Minister envisages something in addition which may require the removal of a commissioner from his office. The right of the State President to remove him is absolutely unqualified.

It does not say that this will happen if he is guilty of a misdemeanour, if he has become insane or something like that. Those things are all dealt with under clause 7(1). I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us what he has in mind, under what circumstances the State President will be asked to remove a commissioner.

Mr. Chairman, it all depends. In other Acts we have the same clause. No reasons are given. This is a business undertaking. I can give the hon. member an example. A commissioner could, for example, become a shareholder in another abattoir. We must then have the power to get rid of him because he would then be a shareholder in an abattoir competing with some of the State abattoirs.

*I cannot think of all the reasons. However, I shall obtain more reasons and give them to the hon. member. All I know is that a similar clause is incorporated in other legislation as well—for instance in the case of business concerns like Escom and Iscor. Business should be done properly. If such a person acts competitively and he is still serving on the commission, problems may arise. I can mention further reasons, but I do not know at this stage what they are. I do not have the necessary information at my disposal.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to make similar provision concerning this particular matter in the case of control boards. This is sometimes necessary for such organizations as well.

The hon. member is out of order. The hon. the Minister need not reply to the question.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 16:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question about the closing of abattoirs. On page 15 in line 42 it says:“If it is in the general interests.” I would like the hon. the Minister to motivate this a little further. This provision seems to be very wide, and I would like to know exactly what the hon. the Minister means when he talks about it being “in the general interests”.

Mr. Speaker, a reason would be where there are, for example, two abattoirs operating in the same area. I can think of an example in Wynberg in Johannesburg where two abattoirs are operating within ten kilometers of each other. We have provision here enabling us to close one of the abattoirs. We have to be practical because by competing with each other, they will cause costs to rise and not one of them will be running economically.

Mr. Chairman, in my experience this sort of competition usually cuts prices rather than push them up. However, I accept the hon. the Minister’s comment.

Mr. Speaker, I must reply to that. Where there are, for example, two abattoirs with a capacity to slaughter 500 head of cattle each and there is a total supply of only 700, it means that the two abattoirs will be slaughtering only at a 70% capacity, because they can slaughter 1 000 head of cattle between them, 500 each. But because they work under capacity, the slaughtering fees will inevitably have to rise from R5 to R7,50. The hon. member’s argument is, therefore, a very stupid one. I would have been truly ashamed of myself if I had been he.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. the Minister, in this instance he may regard my argument as being stupid, but I would just like to say that where there are already two abattoirs, it is very stupid to suggest that one should get rid of one altogether.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the closure of abattoirs is concerned, it is clear that, where the hon. the Minister orders an abattoir to close down, it must happen within a maximum period of 90 days. However, when a local authority decides to close down an abattoir in terms of clause 18, at least 180 days’ notice must be given. I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether there is any particular reason for a distinction to be made between the two and whether the hon. the Minister would not consider making the period 180 days in both cases.

Mr. Chairman, there are in fact reasons for this, but if it would please the hon. member we could consider his request that the two periods should be the same.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17:

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to subsection (2)(i). This has to do with the compensation to be paid in the case where an abattoir is closed. Line 61 reads as follows—

1. (i) any indirect damage or loss of profit caused by such a closure …

The words “loss of profit” are the important words. Again, this provision appears to be very wide indeed. One could have a perfectly legitimate private abattoir which might be running successfully and is in the general interests, being closed down by the Abattoir Commission while compensation is paid only for bricks and mortar and for machinery, but not for loss of profits. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why he has excluded this in this instance.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member will have a look at subsection (3), he will see that compensation will be paid in terms of the Expropriation Act, which may come into operation at the end of May or the beginning of June.

Good news!

When we expropriate according to this Act, the loss of profit …

And in the specific instance I have mentioned?

Yes, in this case we then refer to subsection (3). If one should take the case to court in terms of (3), the judge can decide on the loss of profit according to the Expropriation Act.

I think the matter is fully covered by this. Clause agreed to.

Clause 21:

Mr. Chairman, I am referring to subsection (4) on page 19 which states—

1. (a) demand a tariff other or higher or lower than the tariff fixed by the Minister in respect thereof …

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why a demand for lower tariff is excluded. Surely the hon. the Minister would like to encourage people to slaughter at the lowest possible cost? If a tariff is fixed, surely this is a price maintenance mechanism rather than a mechanism which will enable people to cut costs if they are more efficient? If there are two abattoirs in a particular district, I think it would be an advantage if one of them could cut costs to attract more business. Can the hon. the Minister comment on this?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove has asked a very reasonable question. However, the whole intention with this Bill is to cut prices and to erect abattoirs in the most economic way by fixing slaughter fees, taking into consideration interest on capital outlay, electricity, etc. We would like to see slaughter fees as low as possible. One could, for example, have two towns like Naboomspruit and Nylstroom, and one of these could decide to cut prices. If Naboomspruit decides to cut prices drastically, the farmers will come from Nylstroom to slaughter at Naboomspruit. The abattoir at Nylstroom will then become an uneconomic proposition. The cattle which still are slaughtered at Nylstroom will have to be slaughtered at higher prices to cover the costs. It is to cut out this kind of competition that we have brought forward this provision. I wish the hon. member could see how we work the figures out. We cut it to the bone. If one bears in mind that a man is prepared to build an abattoir to receive a net 2% on his capital outlay, one realizes that one cannot get cheaper service. I know it is reasonable to ask: “Why do you not allow a man to cut anybody else’s throat?”, but then eventually, one will have only Naboomspruit and Nylstroom will be gone. That is the reason for this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the attention to a further argument, i.e. that it is being provided in clause 28 for levies which have to be paid in respect of different abattoirs to differ from abattoir to another. In other words, if one abattoir were to be in a position to pay a lower tariff as that recommended by the commission, the entire financial structure of the Abattoir Commission would be disturbed. These tariffs are calculated and determined on a cost basis. That money is paid into a special account from which have to flow various financial processes. It is therefore absolutely impossible and it cannot be allowed that one abattoir charges a tariff which is lower than the one which has been determined.

Mr. Chairman, the whole position has now become totally clouded. If we are to accept what the hon. the Minister says, namely that it is his intention not to allow an abattoir to slaughter at a lower rate, then I am afraid that we in the official Opposition are going to have to move an amendment. I do not believe that that is the intention, however. [Interjections.] Will that noisy hon. member please be quiet for a moment? I do not think he has even read the Bill. I am trying to help the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Bethal came very close to the correct answer. However, he got himself confused between the tariff and the levy. The levy with which we shall deal a little later, is applied for the slaughter of every animal at an abattoir. That levy goes into the central fund with which the commission will deal. We are now dealing with a tariff. If hon. members will have a look at this Bill, they will see the following in subsection (2) of clause 21—

The point the hon. member for Bethal was making here was that a tariff would be fixed on a cost plus basis for each abattoir. As I read it, there will be no question of undercutting it and I sincerely hope that I am right. If I am wrong and if the explanation given by the hon. the Minister is that it is his intention to stop an abattoir undercutting those costs, then we have to have another look at this. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could clear this matter up. Is it a fact, as the hon. member for Bethal said, that the tariffs for each abattoir are going to be fixed on a cost plus basis and that no abattoir is going to be privileged over another? If that is the case, we can accept this, but if it is not, and if what the hon. the Minister says is correct, then we cannot accept it. Will the hon. the Minister tell us what the true position is?

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I said. I quote from clause 21(4)(a)—

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked why we do not allow a man to go lower than a certain tariff. The reason I gave him is just what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South said. We have been agreeing all along and now he pretends that I am stupid.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 22:

Mr. Chairman, clause 22(3) states, inter alia —

I see that no time limit is put down here and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would not consider giving such a person reasonable time? There is no time given at all, and if an owner fails to comply with an order the very next day, the hon. the Minister may cause all acts directed to be performed. We feel that this is perhaps a little unfair towards abattoir owners and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will consider the insertion of a time limit. Perhaps the words “within a reasonable time” could be inserted.

Mr. Chairman, I see the hon. member’s point. In the Act exactly the same position obtains in terms of section 34, in that no time is fixed. For years we have not had any problem with this section. To stipulate a time limit at this stage is difficult, because it will depend on the nature of the operation. I am saying what the legal advisers have told me, and I cannot see that this clause will in any event be implemented. They tell me that one cannot fix a time limit here and that it should be kept as it is in the Act, according to section 34.

Mr. Chairman, it is specifically because of this that I rise. I have done a considerable amount of work in many abattoirs all over the country, and frequently abattoirs which have fallen below the health standards of local authorities, have been nailed under the old Act and have then not been given sufficient time, as they believed, to carry out rectification work so that they could meet the standards again. It is specifically because of this and because people feel that they need protection in that they should be given reasonable time, that I ask the hon. the Minister to include a time limit. If the hon. the Minister will talk to his legal advisers and they are prepared to stipulate “within a reasonable time”, I am quite happy for him to change this in the Senate. I shall therefore not move an amendment at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member can have a discussion on this before we go to the Other Place. It will be another 10 or 12 days before we do so. He can make his proposals for a time to be fixed and we can see whether the legal advisers can accommodate his proposal. I did not realize that the hon. member was a former butcher with all that experience and if it is practically going to be a problem, then I shall be glad to accommodate him in the Other Place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 25:

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to seek information from the hon. the Minister. In terms of subsection (1) of this clause—

It goes on to say that if it is for a period longer than two years, they must get the approval of the hon. the Minister and certain agreements are deemed to be agreements for a period of more than two years. It would appear that what the hon. the Minister is trying to do here, is to control who will perform services in abattoirs; who will do the slaughtering, who will do the cleaning up and who will do all the other myriads of services which are performed there, including the preparation of hides, skins, etc. Why is there a limitation of two years? In fact, why does the hon. the Minister want to control them at all? The second question is: Why does he only want to control those who have contracts for a period longer than two years?

Mr. Chairman, one may find that an abattoir has an agreement with a slaughter contractor. One cannot have an agreement with a slaughter contractor, practically, for longer than two years because one may find that he is not doing his job, that he is ruining the knives, etc. That is the reason for having a period of two years. Within the two years one can see whether this man is doing his job, and then give him another two years’ extension of the contract. All the work is not done by a specific body. For instance, one has an offal contract, one has a slaughtering contract, one has a contract with a man to remove some of the skins and hides. These contracts, as has been the practice in the past, do not last longer than two years, because one can have problems with some of these people.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 26:

Sir, there is just a small point which is not quite clear. It is in connection with the drawing up of the code. Subsection (4) provides that subject to the provisions of section 22, the provisions of a code published in terms of subsection (3) shall not be binding upon any person. Sir, this sentence does not quite make sense to the agricultural group and we should therefore like to know from the hon. the Minister what it means. Why has it been phrased in this way? Is there not perhaps a mistake here? Surely one cannot draw up a code and then say that the code will not be binding upon any person. What would be the point of that? Under section 22 of the Act there are the orders which may be issued. There is an enormous number of requirements which have to be fulfilled in this regard, and surely, as far as I can see, the code should also have a bearing on this sort of thing. Is there a legal reason why subsection (4) has been phrased like this?

I cannot quite understand this. I shall get the particulars and inform the hon. member later on, because it does not seem correct to me either.

If it will be of help to the Minister, why does he not let the clause stand over?

The same provision is embodied in the Act as well. But I shall get all the particulars and give them to the hon. member and if there is anything wrong, I shall amend it in the Other Place. But it does not alter the essence of the whole clause. The Secretary has just confirmed that the provision appears in the Act, too. Perhaps we could correct it in the Other Place.

Thank you, because I do feel that if this is in the Act it might have slipped in there too. The position as we see it is that the commission may draw up a code of instructions relating to various matters specified in the Bill. Then, having done that, the commission in all seriousness goes to the hon. the Minister and says this is the code of instructions which they would like to have applied—in all abattoirs, incidentally, and not only in the proclaimed areas. The hon. the Minister then has a look at them and says it is a good idea and that he will accept the code. Then in terms of subsection (3), having approved it, he publishes it in the Gazette. The moment he publishes it in the Gazette we take it seriously. If there is to be an amendment at any time, if the commission decides that they would like to amend it, they again go back to the Minister and say they would like to amend this code, and if the Minister approves of the amendment, again it is published in the Gazette. Having done all this, we find that the provisions of the code shall not be binding upon any person at all, subject only to the provisions of clause 22. But in terms of clause 22 the hon. the Minister has the power to issue an order on any person concerned with an abattoir in the proclaimed area whereby he can direct that person to manage the abattoir, to replace equipment, to provide equipment, to alter and repair—the long list of things which appear on page 21 of the Bill. So the Minister, in order to achieve the object of clause 22, does not require the code in terms of clause 26. Therefore I cannot see what this code is there for. If it is not enforceable at all, there is something wrong. I welcome what the hon. the Minister says and I sincerely hope that in the light of this he will have another look at it and perhaps amend it in the Other Place.

Order! I do not, from the Chair, wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the description in the Act, but section 22 is concerned with orders by the Minister, while clause 26 refers to codes which are published in the Gazette. There is a big difference between an order by the Minister and an ordinary code.

I cannot understand what the problem is which the hon. member is experiencing with clause 26. I believe when we look at this code, we have to read it together with the Animal Slaughter Hygiene Act, which is closely related to this. There you will see that abattoirs are divided into A, B and C classes and the idea is only to enable a class A abattoir, where tremendous activities take place and which could be export abattoirs, to enforce these codes more strictly and to apply stricter control measures, whilst there would be less control in class B or class C. I believe it would be quite clear if the hon. member would only read the two together and also together with section 22. Then it would really be impossible to find any fault with this. I should like to support it as it has been printed here.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 27:

Mr. Chairman, clause 27 empowers the hon. the Minister to direct the commission to conduct an inquiry into any matter relating to an abattoir anywhere in the Republic and not only in the proclaimed area. But then we find on the top of page 27 in subsection (7) that the commission may for the purposes of such inquiry at any reasonable time enter upon and inspect any land or premises. I agree that the commission should have the power to do that, but I also believe that there is a degree of courtesy which has to be observed here. I believe that we as legislators have to look after the rights of people. A reasonable time to the commission might not be a reasonable time to a landowner. But whether it is a reasonable time or not, I believe it is only right that the landowner should be notified or, if the landowner is not available, the occupier or the manager or whoever has control over the land at the time that the commission wishes to conduct its inquiry. For that reason I move as an amendment—

The clause will then provide that the commission may for the purpose of such inquiry at any reasonable time, subject to prior notification to the landowner, occupier or manager concerned, enter upon and inspect any land or premises. I do not believe that this is going to hinder the hon. the Minister or the commission in any way in the execution of their duty. On the contrary, I believe it will operate in such a way as to gain the confidence of the public when the commission does so act.

I have no objection to the amendment. The only question is: How must you notify him—by telephone or in writing? And how much time must you give him after you have notified him, etc.? I should like an opportunity to discuss with the legal draftsmen how we must do this, because you can telephone a man five minutes before you arrive. But I can see what the hon. member’s intentions are and I am prepared to accept it in principle.

Thank you, Sir. I understand the hon. the Minister’s dilemma, but having accepted the principle, I withdraw my amendment with the approval of the Committee.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 28:

Mr. Chairman, I notified the hon. the Minister that I was going to speak on this clause, since here again a levy was being imposed which the producers in South Africa would have to bear. One does not object to a levy being imposed on the producer if he alone stands to gain by it. This is a clause which empowers the hon. the Minister to impose a levy which will be paid into a special fund with widely divergent objects. The hon. the Minister should not look at clause 28 in isolation. I am aware of the fact that we may not discuss clauses 29 and 30 now, but may only refer to them.

Those clauses, especially clause 30, very clearly state what is to happen to the money. When we look at what is to happen to the money, we see inter alia, the following included in that clause:ex gratia payments made by the hon. the Minister in terms of section 76 of the Act and the payment of compensation in terms of section 17, 20(5), 23 or 34. The commission will have wider functions, and these functions will not be solely in the interest of the producer. The hon. Minister maintains—and we all admit it—that this commission and the corporation will fill a vacuum which other bodies are not prepared to do. If they are not prepared to do so and the State takes over, which is correct in this case, it is necessary that the State pay for these services. In that case it is a national service, not a sectional service, nor a service which benefits the producer only. The hon. the Minister said with reference to one of the other clauses today that the responsibility to be taken over by the Commission was a tremendous one and that large buildings etc. would come into the hands of the commission and the corporation. Surely these are not the property of the producer. This would be good and well if the abattoirs for which compensation had to be paid upon their closure, were to become the property of the farmers. In that case we would accept this and bear the responsibility as well. Then we would not keep to a small levy, but accept our full responsibility. However, these properties will pass into the hands of the State, and who pays for them? It is the producer who sends his sheep, goats and cattle to the abattoirs. It is not only the person who sends his animals to the abattoirs in the proclaimed areas, because every area is concerned in this—the small abattoir at Pampoenpoort, Bronkhorstspruit, Naboomspruit or Nylstroom. They will have to pay the levy at all the places they go to to slaughter their livestock. We do not make any excuses for the attitude adopted by us. Last Friday the hon. the Minister was very angry with me, because he said that we were making a clever move, that we were going to tell the farmers of South Africa that we agreed with the Act, but that we did not want the burden to be placed on their shoulders. And the hon. the Minister will remember that in 1967, when this matter was before the House, we took up the identical standpoint. This side of the House has been absolutely consistent in its attitude for nearly nine years. We said at the time that it was unnecessary, although it involved only a small amount. Let us look at clause 5, which we have already agreed to. Who pays the people who are going to serve on the commission? They will be paid by the State with money voted by Parliament. In other words, in this the principle is conceded that this will be a commission which will act in the interests of the whole country. If this is so, why should a levy be imposed on the individual producer in order to achieve certain other objectives. We therefore say that this levy is absolutely unfair and unjustified. That is why I have asked the hon. the Minister whether he would accept an amendment if I were to move one. I may not move that money be taken out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or that money be appropriated by Parliament, because only an hon. Minister may do this. Therefore we should like to see, in the event of this clause being negatived, it being replaced by a new clause reading as follows—

1. 28. Moneys required for the purposes of the Commission, shall be appropriated by Parliament.

I am not even going to take the trouble to move this, but I have the amendment, and if the hon. the Minister is prepared to take it over, I am prepared to table it or to give it to him. I think I have made out an adequate case. There are still dozens of arguments which may be advanced. The producer of South Africa has to contend with tremendous increases in production costs and they are still rising. Blow after blow is levelled at him in this respect and if it was a reasonable amount which the hon. the Minister wanted to collect, one could still understand it. There is no ceiling, however, and consequently it may be any amount. The hon. the Minister may, after consultation with the commission, from time to time impose a levy in respect of every animal slaughtered at an abattoir. He does not impose any restrictions upon himself, because if the commission says he is to impose a levy of R2 in respect of an animal slaughtered at an abattoir, that levy may be imposed. Originally, in 1967, the commission was prepared to accept small amounts, but since 1973 they have rejected that restriction altogether. Now it is an amount which may be imposed at the discretion of the Minister and after consultation with the commission. One has no chance of refusing to pay it. The only way in which one can get past this, is to slaughter all your animals at your own farm and to eat them yourself. If one slaughters them at an abattoir in a controlled or an uncontrolled area, one cannot refuse in terms of this clause to pay the amount laid down. I say that he is paying enough as it is. Therefore we are against the levy. We think that this is the responsibility of the State and I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us if he can make out a case for this having to be the responsibility of the farmer alone. If he says that this is the farmer’s responsibility, then he must establish a corporation in which the farmers of South Africa are the shareholders. At the moment this is not the case. Now every South African, every tax-payer, becomes a shareholder in the abattoirs established in terms of this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member himself will also have to answer certain questions in connection with his argument, because I am experiencing problems with the practical implementation of his amendment. I want to give you an example of this. Suppose one has two abattoirs. Abattoir A is modernized and properly developed to meet all the basic, modern standards. One’s tariffs are determined on one’s capital outlay, as laid down in this legislation, in other words, one’s slaughtering costs in respect of a well modernized abattoir will be higher than, for example, those in respect of abattoir B, which is in need of improvement. It is only logical that one must create a reserve by means of a levy, and this reserve can only be created in terms of this clause by means of a levy and the Minister must give his approval if such a levy is created.

Now I ask the hon. member this: Why, if I market my stock at abattoir A, where the costs for slaughtering are extremely high, must I also help to pay for abattoir B, where I never market an animal in any event? There is, in other words, a difference in levy from abattoir to abattoir, according to their needs. One levy cannot be applicable throughout. However, it is also the position—and I agree with this— that the service provided by abattoirs, is a public service. Therefore it is logical, since the producer pays different amounts from abattoir to abattoir by means of levies, that an extra subsidy may possibly be paid by the State as may be needed. Therefore, what this amounts to is that the State, too, may contribute an amount towards a reserve fund, which may be a building or betterment fund. However, I cannot see levies of this type being eliminated altogether. The Bill puts it very clearly that the owner of an abattoir is authorized to demand such a levy. In my opinion, the only basis on which the owner of an abattoir is able to determine and demand such a levy, is the animal slaughtered. This is the unit on which he can operate. The levy must therefore be linked to the animal, and consequently the levy concerned will differ from abattoir to abattoir. This is how I understand the matter. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s answer will be to this.

The practical problem is that the farmer is not prepared to pay for an abattoir which still has to be developed, while the same farmer, by means of levies and building reserves, has built up an amount with which the abattoir where his animals are slaughtered, has been developed and modernized. If another abattoir has been left behind as far as development is concerned, it is not fair that a farmer should pay money to that particular abattoir, while no animal of his is ever slaughtered there.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I gave my reasons why I favoured this Bill, and why I thought it was a very good Bill. At the same time I gave my reason, too, why I felt that the corporation should now stand the cost of building and maintenance of abattoirs. As far as I am concerned, the corporation is the crux of the whole Bill, of the whole issue. The problem that has been worrying me all along is: How will the corporation be financed? As I mentioned during the Second Reading debate we know of people who have been wanting to build abattoirs along the line from Upington to Cape Town, at vantage points, but because of the finance problems, these projects have never materialized.

The hon. the Minister said earlier, while discussing one of the earlier Bills today that local authorities could no longer bear the costs of this sort of project. I mentioned in the Second Reading debate that the same applied to the old abattoir in East London. I believe that the costs should be borne by the State, because abattoirs are a public service, a service which is of national importance. The money to finance abattoirs should be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is where the money should come from.

I support the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Newton Park. This is a good Bill, and I believe that we can make something of it, but with the present high Railway tariffs in respect of livestock in transit, I believe it would be most unsuitable, and most undesirable, to expect the producer to bear the full cost at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, the hon. member for East London North has now touched on the actual problem, that is, the provision of facilities. However, I want to point out that during the past year or two permission has been granted to five private bodies or persons to establish private abattoirs. Not a single one has been erected. The producer’s problem is that he has to market his animals. If the slaughtering facilities are not provided for him, he cannot market them.

A few years ago the farmers were up in arms because they had to market according to a strict quota permit because of the fact that slaughtering facilities were not available. Must we now return to those times? Must we discourage everyone? Not a single producer has complained as yet, about the levy which is demanded. I do not believe that the hon. member for Newton Park can give us the name of a single farmers’ association which has raised objections to the existing levy. That levy is minimal. Now the hon. member talks about the railway tariffs in the same breath. I agree with him 100% that these levies are a completely different matter. It is only a drop in the ocean in comparison with railway tariffs. Therefore we must really not be petty and complain when we come to levies of this proportion.

Money must be found somewhere and the producer must be prepared to contribute his small share. It is very clear that the present abattoir at City Deep cannot possibly be built from levy funds alone. It is impossible. It is State expenditure. The additional expenditure involved, the things mentioned in clause 30, to which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred, as well as in clause 17, which deals with the closure of abattoirs, and clause 20, which deals with the erection of new abattoirs, clause 23, which deals with the compensation to be paid when an abattoir is closed, and clause 35, which deals with the transfer to the abattoir commission or to the abattoir corporation, are all part of the same picture. They all fit into the circle of which levies also form a part. Therefore I believe that we should not be obsessed with the small amount which is involved here. Let us rather approach the Government with a request for a rebate on railway tariffs instead of concerning ourselves unnecessarily with this levy, which is an old levy in any event and which does not really affect anybody.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park overlooked one important point altogether. If he is really interested in the producer on the farm, he would not have made such a fuss about a levy of 15 cents per head of cattle.

How am I to know that it is 15 cents?

Has the hon. member never sent an animal to market yet? Does he not see on his statement of payment that an amount of 15 cents has been deducted?

It is probably that now.

Between three and four cents on a sheep.

That is what it is at the moment, yes!

Will it remain that?

Yes, but this is a flea bite in comparison to our actual costs. Why do you use this amount of 15 cents? The hon. member for Omaruru is entirely correct when he says that as yet not a single farmer has complained about the amount of 15 cents which he has had to pay over the past eight years. Originally the amount was 6 cents, later on it was 7 cents and more, according to the increases in costs. At the moment the levy is 15 cents per head of cattle.

Will it remain that?

It will not remain that!

How did you react when railway tariffs were increased by 50 %? Why did you not argue at that time that that increase should be defrayed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund? [Interjections.] Did you move an amendment to that effect?

I could not.

Surely he could not!

In this case, however, he does have the right to move an amendment. You could have done the same sort of thing here and then you would have been able to say that you had done something practical for the farmer. However, we have a fund here which may eventually disappear when it reaches saturation point, a fund which can be built up and strengthened in such a way that it may gradually disappear. The fund was used in the past to defray the administrative expenses of the Abattoir Commission. However, hon. members do not look at the picture as a whole. I am dependent on the hon. the Minister for finances. I can easily say today that I accept the hon. member’s amendment and that we shall write it into the Act. Then, however, the hon. the Minister of Finance will come to me and say, “You ask for more than R50 million for abattoirs and I give it to you. You come forward each time and ask for the erection of silos, for example, and for assistance for the municipal markets, and now for abattoirs, too, where the municipalities say, ‘We are throwing in the towel’.” You come forward each time and ask for those millions but now you are grumbling about a levy of 15 cents per head of cattle. This bedevils all my prospects of money I may ask for in future. This is what the hon. member cannot understand. Hon. members must not think that I am becoming excited. However, it is very easy to go and tell the farmers that they voted in Parliament to save him a levy of 15 cents, but in that case they have done nothing at all about all the other costs. This is all it will be. The hon. member tried to play politics, but he chose the wrong item.

You are playing politics.

No, I am not playing politics. Why should there be this fuss about the levy of 15 cents? Let us look for a moment at what that money is used for.

†The hon. member for East London North was quite right. No city council, from East London to Cape Town, is prepared to build an abattoir today. The buck is passed to the Minister of Agriculture. I have to get the money. When all is said and done, an abattoir is not for the sole benefit of the producer; it is also for the benefit of the consumer. However, one must also see the role of the hon. the Minister of Finance in this regard. He has to supply the money.

But he is a strange fellow.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister the total amount collected in levies under the present Act during the past year?

Mr. Chairman, I can give the hon. member the figures out of hand. Then he can make the calculations himself. The levy used to be 12 cents, whereas it has been 15 cents for the past ten months. We slaughtered 1,6 million head of cattle. The levy for sheep was between 3 and 4 cents per sheep and we slaughtered just over 7 million sheep. We must bear in mind that a fund has been built up. All the money has not been spent. It is still there. That is why I say that this fund will reach saturation point some time in future. If the hon. member is not convinced now that he is making a mistake with this amendment, then I do not know. I have accepted all the other amendments. I have done my share; I have accepted their amendments; and I ask him kindly to withdraw this one so that we may proceed.

Order! There is no amendment.

In any event, it is a simple thing which he wanted to move.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is getting so excited about the matter. He has said here himself, in reply to a question put by the hon. member for East London North, that no town council would build an abattoir today. He said the responsibility was being passed on to him and that he must find the money for it. The fact is that the town councils played their part in the old days, even before the Abattoir Commission and the legislation we are discussing at the moment. They also had a levy, but they obtained money from their ratepayers as well which was spent on the abattoirs. What we are asking for now is that the same thing should happen and that the whole burden should not be on the shoulders of the farmers. We have just had this increase in the railway tariffs. We objected to it, but we were unable to move an amendment. I should like to propose another solution to the hon. the Minister. An abattoir handles live cattle which enter from one side. The farmer is already paying a tariff for those cattle and is also paying an increased railway tariff. The abattoir then handles the carcass which emerges on the other side. Could the levy which is proposed here not be applicable to the carcass part of the enterprise so that there would be a distribution? The farmer is paying on the one side, so that the consumer may also contribute something at the other side.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany is quite right. The city councils have played their part, but the average age of abattoirs is nearly 50 years by now. They have become antiquated and the city councils do not have money to replace them. That is why we have the nine large controlled areas; we have already taken over nearly all of them and have built new ones. Halfway between Pietermaritzburg and Durban there will be an abattoir which will cost more than R30 million. Where will the money come from? From the hon. the Minister of Finance at a very low rate of interest to create this facility. Therefore the Government has also played its part. Now, however, the hon. member tells us how the levy should be utilized. Last Friday I said that when we fix the floor price of meat, this sort of argument is always raised. But the farmers are not stupid. They see all these cost increases and they add them to the floor price. For example, if the levy has been 15 cents and then it becomes 16 cents, the increase of one cent is taken into consideration. It is then added to the floor price.

What about the increase in railway tariffs on livestock?

Its full effect will not be felt by the consumer. The consumer price varies according to supply and demand. We must remember the floor price. Today the price is far higher than the floor price. It is no use raising the floor price, however, for if the auction price should then fall, the farmer would get even less. Traditionally, however, it still is higher than the floor price for 11 months of the year. That also has an effect on the farmer. He is protected by means of our floor price system in determining the price of meat.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister says his whole case will be lost if we keep on complaining about the 15 cents which will perhaps be levied per head of cattle, while he needs millions from the hon. the Minister of Finance. However, the hon. the Minister is not telling us the whole story. We are still coming to Chapter II, which deals with the establishment of the corporation. That corporation will be a utility company and it cannot simply get its money for free from the hon. the Minister of Finance. Surely that is nonsense.

But I never said that.

The hon. the Minister of Finance will allow the corporation, as he usually allows a utility company, to borrow money on the public market.

That, too.

Anyone who renders a service at the abattoir which will be established by this corporation will be able to make a profit from the service he renders there. In other words, this corporation would also have its income. It would not only operate on 2% profit. But even 2% is good enough under the circumstances for a utility company. Even if it should operate on no profit, one could still be satisfied. Our point, however, is this: If the corporation will be established without the farmers having to pay for it, why does clause 28 require payment for the services which the commission is rendering, even for the compensation which has to be paid? I do not wish to repeat all the aspects now. The hon. the Minister knows that it will be possible to provide quite a number of services from that account in terms of clause 29 and clause 30. If that can be done if there is a separation, why cannot the corporation pay these costs? Why cannot the hon. the Minister of Finance pay these costs? It is very easy for the hon. gentleman to say that it is just a small amount. However, how long will it remain a small amount? Originally, in 1967, there was a limitation on the amount. The hon. the Minister was not Minister of Agriculture then. Mr. Dirkie Uys was then the Minister of Agriculture. We argued that point across the floor of the House at that time and we on this side of the House got the limitation introduced. A few years later they wanted to amend the whole limitation. Why? Because the hon. the Minister knows that the commission needs additional money because it has to do a tremendous amount of work. If it did that additional work only for the farmer as a producer, fine. It is not doing it for itself only, however; it is doing it for everybody. The hon. the Minister has not done his homework well enough. He must lay the blame on the hon. the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether he stated the case convincingly enough to the hon. the Minister of Finance.

It is R500 000.

Yes, it is half a million rand at the moment, but it might be R5 million in 10 years’ time, perhaps even R20 million.

It is very easy to say “no”. However, we know this Government. Once they have that power in their hands and the costs begin to rise, they will make the producers pay for it. That is what we are fighting against. We want the burden to be distributed among everyone so that, if the hon. member for Vasco or the hon. member for Tygervallei, for example, were to get facilities in the city, they too would pay for it. That is the argument of this side of the House. I am certain that the hon. the Minister of Finance will not be so unreasonable, because he is already accepting responsibility in terms of clause 5 for the payment of the salaries of the commissioners. Why should the farmer be responsible for other large expenditure, including compensation and other services which have to be rendered?

The hon. member for Bethal said that the levy would not be totally eliminated. As I understand clause 28, different levies may be fixed for different abattoirs. As far as I know, the commission has laid down a more or less constant levy in the past for every type of animal which has been slaughtered.

The Bill makes provision for that.

It does not really matter where the various animals are slaughtered—everybody pays for it. Therefore we should like to ask the hon. the Minister to accept this amendment. If he does not accept it, we on this side of the House will believe that he is placing an unfair burden on the shoulders of the producer under the circumstances, while he expects the producer to be the only one who will have to propagate the fine objectives of this commission and who will have to pay for it. That conclusion will be unavoidable under these circumstances if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to change his attitude.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to accept the hon. member’s amendment. I ask this for the simple reason that the hon. member for Newton Park wants to make the meat industry of South Africa entirely dependent on funds from the Treasury. It has always been the policy in agriculture for every industry to stand on its own two feet as far as possible. The argument advanced by the hon. member that since it is a public service, only the farmer should bear the cost, is not quite correct. The cost of slaughtering forms part of the farmer’s expenses which, in order to protect himself, he can provide for by way of the floor price system for which provision is made in the meat scheme. If provision is made in this way for those expenses, the expenses in question are distributed among everyone in the meat industry. This is a logical economic argument. I want to ask the Minister not to accept this amendment because to make the development of the abattoir industry entirely dependent on funds from the Minister of Finance and not to provide for any levies would be a dangerous move. We could find ourselves in a situation which could cause the abattoir industry a great deal of harm. If the industry itself possessed no reserves, the meat industry in South Africa would become entirely dependent on bodies which would perhaps be unable to assist us in certain circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the hon. member for Bethal at all. What is the sum of money we are talking about? The amount which he says he believes the whole meat industry in this country must be dependent upon is R500 000. The hon. the Minister gave me some figures a little while ago with the aid of which I have done a little sum—if my calculations are incorrect, someone must please tell me. It would appear that, at the moment, all we are talking about is R500 000. The hon. the Minister says he cannot get it from the hon. the Minister of Finance, but that he must take if from the farmers. The hon. member for Bethal also says he cannot take it from the hon. the Minister of Finance because the farmers must be independent; they must not be dependent on the Government.

Let us see what is going to happen to this money. In terms of clause 28, a levy will be collected which, it appears, will be for R500 000. Then, in terms of clause 29, if I may refer to it, that money will be paid into a special account. What money is going to be paid into that special account? This levy which is to be collected, plus any amount which the Abattoir Commission has to its credit at the moment. That, again, only involves the levy we have been collecting up to now. That is all it is. Consequently, it cannot be such a large amount of money. However, what is going to be paid our of that account? That brings me to clause 30. The hon. member for Omaruru was correct when he said that all the compensation, the ex gratia payments and such like, will be paid from that levy. I believe there must be some other money somewhere—I do not think there will be enough money in that account to do all these things if we are going to close abattoirs.

He will have to increase the levy within six months, and he knows it.

Yes, the levy will have to be increased, as my friend, the hon. member for Newton Park, says. The levy will have to be increased or else there will have to be another source of funds. The only other source I can think of is money that will be appropriated by Parliament for this commission. If one looks at clause 3, one finds that the members of this commission are going to come from the hon. the Minister’s department. Clause 5 provides that any moneys which have to be paid to the commissioners by way of salaries, will be moneys appropriated by Parliament for that purpose. Clause 5(5) specifically provides that. All we are asking the hon. the Minister to do, is to make a similar provision applicable here. An amount of R500 000 is to be appropriated by Parliament every year. It has become a matter of principle for the farmers at the moment, whether, as the hon. member for Newton Park has said, they should pay for something whereby everybody benefits or whether the necessary funds should be taken from the one source to which everybody contributes, viz. the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Producers and consumers—all of us—contribute to that fund. The farmers also contribute to it. It is the one fund which, if resorted to, will ensure that everyone makes his contribution. I believe that the request of the hon. member for Newton Park is reasonable. I urge the hon. the Minister not to listen to his friends on that side of the House, but rather to listen to his friends on this side of the House and to accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Newton Park.

Mr. Chairman, I again want to ask the hon. members opposite to listen to reason. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South mentioned the amount of half a million rand, based on the figures furnished by the hon. the Minister. One need only set against that the increase in the rail and road transport tariffs which are going to cost the farmers in South West Africa alone an additional R2,2 million, as against the amount of R520 000 for the entire Republic. As against that there is the Bill at present before the House. The whole spirit of the Bill amounts to a diminution of control, the exclusion of smaller abattoirs. In other words, it is far more to be expected that the overall responsibility of the Abattoir Commission will be considerably reduced, and not increased. What is all this about? Do the hon. members not want to realize that we should rather try to obtain assistance where assistance is really necessary and that we should not burden the Government with trifles?

Clause put and the Committee divided:

AYES—99: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Villiers, D. J.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Krijnauw, P. H. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Schoeman H.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Treurnicht, A. P.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

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

NOES—36: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Bell, H. G. H.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. L; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Enthoven (’t Hooft), R. E.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lorimer, R. J.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Miller, H.; Mills, G. W.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: T. G. Hughes and W. M. Sutton.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 31:

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

1. (3) Where an inspector exercises or performs any power, duty or function in terms of this Act in the presence of any persons affected thereby, such inspector shall first exhibit the certificate referred to in subsection (2) to any of these persons.

As the clause reads at the moment, an inspector shall, in terms of subsection (3), on demand produce his certificate of authority referred to in subsection (2). The object of the amendment is to provide that the inspector shall produce his certificate before he fulfils his obligations or duties as set out in the clause. The purpose of the amendment is twofold. In the first instance it seeks to eliminate the need for a person to have to ask an inspector to exhibit or show his certificate, thereby possibly creating in the mind of the inspector the suspicion that his bona fides are being questioned. In the second instance it seeks to protect owners from operators who may be fraudulent or who may be impostors. I believe that whenever the legislature has an opportunity in law to protect the citizens of South Africa, no matter how small that opportunity is or how seldom it may arise, it should take advantage of such an opportunity to alter or improve laws with that object in view.

Mr. Chairman, I indicated to the hon. member that I personally could not see anything wrong with his amendment. However, the legal adviser has informed me that on reconsideration of the proposal of the hon. member, he is not convinced that it will improve on the existing provisions of the clause. The reason for this is that an inspector will, through repeated visits to abattoirs, become well known to the abattoir owner and his employees. They will eventually become satisfied that he is, in fact, an inspector. A requirement that he should each time produce his certificate of appointment would, in the opinion of the legal adviser, be carrying the matter too far. In terms of the existing provisions the abattoir owner and his employees will be at liberty to demand production of a certificate whenever they feel so inclined. After consultation with the adviser I suggest that the provisions of the clause be left unaltered. Incidentally, the wording of this clause is in line with existing Acts, for example section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Act, 1973. I may add that it is a pity that the hon. member did not vote on our side because then I could have taken a chance and accepted his amendment. However, I shall have further discussions on this point. My difficulty is that I always prefer to have the support of the legal advisers when I accept amendments. If the general feeling is that the hon. member’s amendment cannot cause major harm, I shall move a similar amendment when the Bill is considered by the Senate.

May I point out to the hon. the Minister that there are precedents for this particular piece of legislation and to my knowledge they have worked perfectly smoothly. The Atmospheric Pollution Act has been on the Statute Book since 1964.

It has not been used yet.

I am very surprised to hear that we have had an Act on the Statute Book for 10 years and that this particular section has never been used, when it involves inspectors with broad powers to inspect sources of pollution. That may be one of the causes of pollution. But it is not only in that Act. We also have it in the Hazardous Substances Act, the Foodstuffs, Cosmetics and Disinfectants Act and in the Medicines Control Act and it has been accepted by various Ministers who have, I believe, accepted our point of view that this is a positive amendment as against the negative attitude adopted towards people who are being subjected to inspection. I am very sorry. I always understood the hon. the Minister to be a most reasonable and co-operative Minister, and I am sorry to hear that he is not prepared to accept the amendment because there are a number of examples which illustrate that this is perfectly practicable in the eyes of the legal draftsmen. So I would appeal to the hon. the Minister that if he feels he is unable to accept it here he will be prepared to give an undertaking that he will give it serious consideration and that he accepts it in principle.

Yes, I accept it. I was just angry because a moment ago you voted for such nonsense.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 38:

In line 8 in clause 38 there is reference to “a writing purporting to be an affidavit”. I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that I have in fact checked with our legal advisers and they can see no reason at all why it should not just refer to “an affidavit”. I think the words “a writing purporting to be” should drop. In answer to the debate on another Bill when the same wording was used it was said that it came from the Government’s legal advisers, but our legal advisers can see absolutely no reason at all why the words “a writing purporting to be an affidavit” should be used. If anybody purports to bring any document at all and say that it is an affidavit, in terms of this wording it can be accepted as being legal when in fact it is not. Why cannot we just leave it as a straight affidavit?

I also consulted my legal adviser and he says there is nothing wrong with it. The principle of the Act will not be altered and he feels that from the legal point of view, we should retain these words. In Afrikaans it says: “heet te wees.” These people have all kinds of ideas. He says it is better to talk about “ ’n verklaring heet te wees” than simply a “verklaring”. So I cannot see why we have to cross swords about this. The main thing is that the abattoir is going to be built.

I am afraid the hon. the Minister’s reply is a little too simplistic fo me. I feel it is totally bad to write into any clause words which are totally unnecessary and which can only confuse the issue. Certainly when you talk about “a writing purporting to be an affidavit”, it is not even good English the first instance. It is meaningless, and if you omit the words “a writing purporting to be’ and just say “an affidavit” it seems to me to be a simplification. It is in every way better and there is no confusion at all, because if it is not an affidavit I would like to know what it is. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell me.

I fully agree with you.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 39:

I would just like to raise again the question of the shifting of the onus in this matter. This point was raised a few days ago in the House when we debated the Plant Improvement Bill. In the case of that measure you will recall, Sir, that the employer was purported to be liable as long as his employee committed an offence, unless the employer proved that he had in fact in no way connived in that act. I pointed out at that time that the penalties in the Act were fairly severe and that there could be cases arising in which it would be very difficult for an employer to prove beyond a reasonable doubt—because this is a criminal offence—that in fact he had not connived at or been party to the commission of the offence. Because of the Government’s reaction to the Plant Improvement Bill, which contained a clause which was almost identical to the one in the Bill we have before us now, we have not placed an amendment on the Order Paper because I presumed that the attitude of the hon. the Minister would be the same as it was last week. On the other hand I think it must be pointed out firstly that it is a bad principle in law to shift the onus unnecessarily, and secondly, that it places upon an employer a burden which sometimes, particularly in the case where you have an employee who is mala fide, is a very heavy one. Therefore I would suggest that the Minister should reconsider this matter. Rather than requiring the burden of proof to be beyond a reasonable doubt, as it is now, the burden of proof should be reduced by inserting here that that proof shall be on the balance of probabilities. That would give a far greater discretion to the court to exonerate an employer who may have difficulty in proving his case in the light of a mala fide employee. I may say that in the present circumstances we cannot support this clause as it stands.

Sir, we have already discussed this matter during the Second Reading. I went and had a look at the Act. This clause is identical, word for word, with the provision in the Act. I had a look at the cases in the law reports, and I could not find a reference anywhere in any law report to an interpretation of this section. There is an identical clause in almost all agricultural legislation and there is a very good reason for this. I have already said during the Second Reading that we should have strict control. It is vitally necessary that we should have strict control, because it must not become possible for employees to hide behind offences committed by the employees. It is the easiest thing in the world for an employer to escape responsibility which he ought to know about by simply shifting it on to his workers. That is why the burden of proof is placed so strictly on the employer in this case. To my knowledge there have not been any Supreme Court decisions on this point up to now and to me this is a good indication that this particular section is carrying out its function very effectively in its present form.

Clause agreed to (Progressive Reform Party dissenting).

Clause 49:

I want to move the following amendment which is consequential to the amendment I moved on clause 7 and which the Minister accepted—

It is unnecessary to discuss this further. I think the hon. the Minister will accept it because he accepted the previous one.

I am very sorry to say that I accept the amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54:

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

I feel that the hon. the Minister is limiting himself excessively in this clause, which reads inter alia, as follows—

The hon. the Minister is limiting attendance at these meetings to officers “serving in the department”. Cases may arise where he may want to have somebody from the Department of Justice or, possibly, from the Auditor-General’s department, to attend a meeting. With the amendment I have moved he will still have the right to allow members serving in his department to attend, but I believe he should take the limitation upon himself out of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, in an attempt to help the hon. the Minister make up his mind on the amendment …

I have made up my mind.

Has the hon. the Minister made up his mind?

I accept the amendment; you can sit down.

Why did the hon. the Minister not stand up and say so? [Interjections.]

Order!

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 72:

Mr. Chairman, clause 72 states that “the State and its employees, the Minister, the members of the Commission, the Corporation, its directors and employees or any inspector shall not be liable in respect of anything done in good faith under the provisions of this Act”. This is a blanket indemnity. This has become a standard provision, and we have seen it in a lot of legislation recently. I would again like to record our total objection to this sort of thing. I realize that a certain measure of indemnity should be granted, but our legal advisers have advised us that, with the addition of certain other words, such as “reasonably done in good faith” or “done in good faith without negligence” it then comes within the ambit of the courts. Their advice is that as it stands at the moment, any employee who does something in good faith, although it may be done negligently, can get away with it. Such a person will be indemnified completely. I really do believe that the hon. the Minister should ask his legal advisers to look at this again. The answer I have had in the past is that it is still within the ambit of the courts as it stands at the moment. I believe that this indemnity could be put on a more reasonable basis by a slight alteration of the words. I believe it would then be clearer as far as interpretation is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, this clause is the same as section 59 of the Act and it did not give us any problems. Our legal advisers say—

Leave it to the courts. They also say—

We are splitting hairs now. I really think this provision should stand.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 76:

Mr. Chairman, as always happens when one has legislation like this where we are doing away with one organization and creating another in its place, one always has the problem of what to do with the staff. It has always been the habit of this side of the House to look after the interests of the members of the staff and to see to it that they are adequately provided for. I have hunted through the Bill and this is the only place I can find where any mention is made of the staff of the present abattoir commission who are not officials of the hon. the Minister’s department. As I mentioned a little earlier, the new commission is to have a staff which will be made up of officials of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. Clause 76(2)(b) reads—

There is no choice whatsoever for an employee. He has no opportunity of deciding himself what he wishes to do. He “shall become an employee of the corporation”, the corporation mentioned being the new body which is being established.

I wish you would go into a coma for a few days.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Carletonville to make a noise. I do not believe that he has even read the Bill, let alone that he has any interest in the employees of the commission.

He will be slaughtered in the next election.

Yes, he will. When one looks at subsection (4), it would appear that the hon. the Minister does anticipate a problem or some problems, because he makes provision that he “may” pay an ex gratia amount. It is not mandatory now, whereas it is mandatory for an employee to become an employee of the corporation. I quote from clause 76(4)—

Subsection (2)(b) mentioned here is the one I mentioned earlier. It would appear that the hon. the Minister anticipates problems. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will tell us at this stage of this particular Bill before we close the debate, what exactly he intends doing to protect the interests of employees of the present commission. It is not quite clear here. He is asking us to give him the power to compensate by way of an ex gratia payment—if he wishes and at his instance only. The employees are given no rights whatsoever. In fact, in terms of this legislation the employees lose rights because they “shall become employees of the corporation”. If they are retrenched or dismissed or their services are terminated, the Minister “may” compensate them; he does not have to compensate them. He may do so at his discretion. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us what his thoughts are here and whether he has come across any problems or whether he anticipates any problems and, if so, how he anticipates he will solve them.

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member realizes, the staff of the old commission will go over to the corporation—most of them. These people are very scarce. I cannot foresee that even one of them will not be employed in the new corporation. There are certain activities and functions they have to do. I do not know whether the hon. member realizes it, but we even have engineers on the abattoir commission. They are qualified engineers and are difficult to find today. When we decide to go over to a corporation, some of the personnel will be transferred. I think that is the reason why we have the extra payment if a man feels he is not prepared to carry on with the job. I can think of specific names, but I do not want to mention them. We want the power to treat these people well because they gave us good service. I cannot see any problems in practice, because these people who want to be employed, will become employees of the corporation. However, they are free to resign if they want to, but I shall be very unhappy if they do, because we need them to carry on with the job in the future. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member is concerned about the welfare of the people working for us, but this clause is actually there to cover these people.

*This is a new dispensation that we are now entering and we want to see the men happy and retain them as far as we are able. This is the reason for the ex gratia compensation in some cases, of which the hon. member himself is aware.

What about pensions?

They have contributed throughout to a pension scheme similar to that of the State.

Is it being taken over by the new scheme?

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Representations have been received from the Chamber of Mining and from the Commissioner of Police for the amendment of subsection (2) of section 156 of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, relating to police traps, as far as unwrought precious metal, such as gold or platina, is concerned. As hon. members know, it is essential to combat not only illegal dealing in uncut diamonds, but also illegal dealing in unwrought gold and platina. During the previous session this House approved an amendment to subsection (2) of section 108 of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, to the effect that money received by the Police from a suspected illegal diamond dealer is forfeited to the State, irrespective of whether the police have handed over the uncut diamonds to the illegal diamond dealer. For the information of hon. members I may mention that the wording of subsection (2) of section 108 of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, was the same, before the amendment of 1975, as that of subsection (2) of section 156 of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, except that the one referred to uncut diamonds and the other to unwrought precious metal.

This Bill which is to be considered by the House is not only intended to bring the provisions of section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act, 1967, into line with those of the present wording of section 108(2) of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, but is also necessary for reasons to which I shall come later.

As I have said, section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act is concerned with police traps. I do not think I need discuss the desirability of the system of police traps, because the fact of the matter is that in a country such as South Africa, where gold is found over such a large area, the system, which has been in existence for many years, is an absolute necessity. In making this point, I want to refer to a report which appeared in our newspapers on 11 March, to the effect that a Mr. So-and-so had been convicted and fined on a charge of having stolen platina worth R575 000 and unwrought gold worth R409 000—a kind of thing which often occurs.

During 1974, we sold gold to the value of almost R2 620 million, and few people realize the enormous proportions assumed by smuggling in unwrought gold and platina in South Africa, in spite of all attempts by the police to combat this phenomenon. In order to illustrate the extent of these smuggling activities, the following information can be furnished for the period from 10 August 1972, i.e. the date on which the diamond and gold branches of the police were incorporated, up to the end of June 1975—

1. (1) There were 132 cases in which gold belonging to the State was sold to smugglers for a total amount of R77 682.
2. (2) There were nine cases of theft in which a total of 71 871 grammes of unwrought gold, valued at R38 571, was stolen.
3. (3) In a 100 cases, a total of 40 100 grammes of gold worth R10 852 was illegally possessed.
4. (4) A total of 10 009 grammes of unwrought gold to the value of R5 678 was purchased from smugglers in 75 cases.
5. (5) Six cases occurred in which 32 472 grammes of platina valued at R112 484 was stolen and found back.
6. (6) There were six cases in which persons were in illegal possession of approximately 1 450 grammes of platina worth R4 905.
7. (7) A total of 3 219 grammes of platina worth R11 539 was bought from smugglers in two cases.

I take it that hon. members will agree with me that any emasculation of the police trap system may cause the smuggling trade to reach unmanageable proportions.

I want to give a brief explanation of the existing provisions of section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act. When a member of the S.A. Police has transferred possession of any unwrought precious metal to any person upon payment or delivery by such person of an amount in money or other consideration, and such person is subsequently convicted of an offence in connection with such transaction, the money thus paid over or delivered is automatically forfeited to the State. This provision was specially introduced as a further deterrent to illegal dealings in unwrought precious metal, because experience has shown that the heavy fines which can be imposed do not in themselves have the desired effect. It is important for hon. members to bear in mind that in terms of the present provision of section 156(2), the position is that money handed over to the police is automatically forfeited to the State only when the police have handed over the unwrought metal to the suspected smuggler.

†The Chamber of Mines has an arrangement with the diamond and gold branch of the S.A. Police in terms of which gold bullion is supplied to the police for use in traps designed to apprehend people who contravene the illicit dealing provisions of the Mining Rights Act, 1967. A proportion of the money forfeited to the State in terms of section 156(2) of the Act is paid to the Chamber to compensate for losses suffered by the Chamber when gold used in traps cannot be recovered. This arrangement has worked well for several years but recently, due to the increase in the price of gold, the value of the gold lost has exceeded the proportion of confiscated money paid to the Chamber. In 1974, for example, gold to the value of R55 000 was lost and the Chamber recovered only R24 000. The losses of gold are ascribable to the provision of section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act whereby the possession of the unwrought precious metal involved in a transaction must be transferred to the illegal buyer so that the money which has been paid to the police will, if the buyer concerned is convicted of an offence, be forfeited to the State. As a result, such buyers from time to time manage to get away with the gold. The Chamber of Mines is concerned about the needless cost of the assistance which it gives to the police and has therefore asked that section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act be amended so as to correspond with section 108(2) of the Precious Stones Act, 1964, as amended in 1975.

All that we are doing now is to amplify the existing provisions of section 156(2) of the Mining Rights Act so that money or other consideration which has been paid to the Police in connection with an illicit transaction will, if the person concerned is convicted of an offence in connection with that transaction, be forfeited to the State irrespective of whether the possession of the unwrought precious metal which was the subject of the transaction was transferred to the convicted person prior to his arrest or not.

*The position is, therefore, that we have two Acts for precious metals and precious stones. The necessary amendments have been made to the one Act, but not to the other. The proposal which is now before the House is aimed at bringing the two Acts into line as far as this matter is concerned, and the argument used in the past, when the first Act was accepted, is applicable to this Act as well.

Mr. Speaker, last year we on this side of the House supported the amendment of the Precious Stones Act. It is only logical that we should support this amendment to the Mining Rights Act as well, and consequently we do not wish to raise any objections to the Second Reading of this Bill. I just want to add, as I did last year, that we are not always quite happy about the principle of police traps. We do realize, and we accept, that especially under the present circumstances, weak-minded people might be tempted to flee the country because they are not happy with the present state of affairs, and that they might then look for means such as precious stones or gold or platinum to enable them to get their wealth or property out of the country. Consequently there is a particular need to ensure that people cannot resort to smuggling with gold or precious stones in order to evade the normal control exercised by way of exchange control. For this reason I accept that there must be a system of police traps, but we request that it should be used with great circumspection to avoid involving in the traps people who may have a weak character or who may be avaricious, but who would not really be inclined to commit a criminal offence. We feel that this legislation is necessary and we support it in the circumstances I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches will also support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. members for their support. It would not be logical to conduct an argument about police traps at this stage, because, as you know, this aspect has already been debated when similar legislation was before the House. Naturally, the Department of Mining does not do the police work itself; the police take care of this themselves. All the department is trying to do is to determine the circumstances within which the police will operate, and it is not for the Department of Mining to tell the police how to go about their work, because we have great confidence in that department of the police which is in charge of this work. I thank the hon. members 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—

This Bill, the Second Reading of which I am moving today, is perhaps one of the most exceptional or unique pieces of legislation which has been introduced in this Parliament in many years. Consequently it is perhaps fitting that I state a few facts about the people of Rehoboth, viz. the Rehoboth Baster Gemeinte of South West Africa, for the information of hon. members, for I believe that hon. members of this House, too will then have great appreciation for this legislation and for what has been achieved in this way by my department.

The Rehobothers are a little nation of mixed descent which, in the previous century, migrated across the Orange River from the Northern Cape into South West Africa under the leadership of their kaptein, a certain Hermanus van Wyk.

In the year 1870, after many wanderings as well as privations in this vast and untamed region, they settled in the vicinity of the present Rehoboth after they had acquired the territory by way of negotiations from the Swartboois, a Nama tribe.

At present the Rehoboth Gebiet is 1 428 788 ha in extent. In general it is good agricultural land, especially suited to animal husbandry. There are approximately 19 000 Basters living in the Rehoboth Gebiet, while many are working in neighbouring towns and cities, including Windhoek. Unfortunately, separate census figures in respect of Basters outside the Gebiet are not available since they are classified as Coloureds outside the Gebiet.

What is important to realize, however, is that this group of coloured migrants was not a disorderly group of exiles, as were sometimes found in those days, but a community which led a law-abiding and orderly existance. In 1872, soon after settling at Rehoboth, they consequently drafted their own constitution which made provision for a government, as well as various other laws to regulate their communal life. Even today they still regard these laws, which they call the paternal laws, with great piety and love, and continue to live their lives according to them. With the occupation of South West Africa by the Germans in 1894 the Rehobothers also came under German rule and the customary Schütz treaty was concluded with them as well, but this was accepted with great reluctance on their part. During the First World War they rose in armed rebellion against the Germans and were in fact involved in an engagement with the German forces at a place called Samkhubis when South West Africa was invaded by the Union forces in the south. Consequently the German forces withdrew from Samkhubis and to this day the Rehobothers celebrate their Samkhubis festival every year as a kind of Heroes’ Day.

Nor were the Rehobothers very interested in the transfer of South West Africa as a mandated territory to the then Union Government after the First World War. In essence they regarded themselves as an independent nation, people who required only to be left in peace to live in Rehoboth under their own paternal laws.

The following are the distinguishing features of this community—

1. (a) They call themselves the Baster Gemeinte or the Basters of Rehoboth, and definitely have an identity of their own and a national pride.
2. (b) They have their own register of persons who qualify for citizenship of Rehoboth. Consequently applicants for citizenship have to be of related descent, of good conduct, have to be acquainted with the laws, morals and norms of the community, and have to go through a trial period and be approved by a council, after which they also have to pay to be able to become citizens.
3. (c) Then, too, the Rehobothers have numerous institutions of their own which sometimes enjoy no statutory recognition, but which they themselves recognize, maintain and observe, for example their own marriage laws, their own system of land registration, their own Basterhof, etc.
4. (d) Internally they are an extremely democratic community and the elected council members have to act in close liaison with the people at all times, report regularly to the community and also hold an annual “policy meeting” at which matters of policy concerning the Gebiet are discussed.

As far as administrative institutions are concerned, for example a form of local government, a deadlock has existed during the past 50 years or more. No form of local government has been feasible or acceptable to them. All they wanted was to have their paternal laws recognized and further to be left in peace without outside intervention in their local community matters.

As a solution all administrative authority has since 1924 been placed in the hands of the local magistrate. He is known locally as “the Kaptein”, and since 1928 he has been assisted in his administration by an advisory council of seven elected Rehoboth citizens.

The fact of the matter is, however, that during the past 50 years there has been almost no co-operation between the Rehoboth community and governmental bodies such as the Administration of South West Africa or the Government. Indeed, the general atmosphere and disposition was one of great mistrust, stagnation and hostility. Under these circumstances it was impossible to promote the proper planning or development of the Rehoboth Gebiet and its inhabitants effectively. All institutions established on the part of the authorities, even institutions which were purely for the benefit of the inhabitants, for example the Rehoboth Development Corporation, were regarded with mistrust and virtually boycotted. Even assistance in the building of schools was refused, and for many years the Rehobothers built their own schools from their own funds.

During December 1973 my departmental head, however, held a long and very frank meeting with the Baster Advisory Council of Rehoboth. The various problems were discussed in detail and the question of an innate pride, self-development and the right of self-determination was emphasized through-out. As far as the demand for the re-enactment of the Paternal Constitution of 1872 was concerned, it was conceded that it could in fact be done by law. Indeed, the approach was that it was in fact very desirable to use what was indigenous to the nation, such as the paternal laws, as a foundation or starting point for further political development. A constitution should, as it were, grow out of a nation’s history, and the background, traditions and administrative concepts of a nation should also be reflected therein.

With these negotiations the breakthrough was made as far as Rehoboth was concerned. At the beginning of 1974 the council began to hold a series of meetings, and formulated their own proposals for a constitution. Essentially their proposals amounted to their desire for the re-enactment of the Paternal Constitution of 1872, to this forming the basis of their constitution and to this not being deviated from. Because they realized, however, that the Paternal Law was obsolete, that it did not comply with all the requirements of a present-day government and that it contained no definition of powers, financial provisions, etc. the council itself put forward a considerable number of proposals for which provision also has to be made in the constitution.

Consequently it was agreed that the constitution would fundamentally be divided into two parts, i.e. a section which would comprise the re-enactment of the Paternal Law of 1872, and secondly a part in which all the additional general provisions would be contained.

On this basis a draft constitution was drawn up and numerous further consultations were held until the Bill in its present form was universally acceptable in its entirety to the Advisory Council and the population of Rehoboth. A number of minor amendments to the Paternal Constitution Act were effected only where necessary and with the concurrence of the council.

It should be mentioned that this Bill was ready for introduction last year already, but because there was at that stage still dissension in the ranks of the Baster Council over the question of whether or not the “nation” had been adequately consulted on the matter, five members of the Baster Council resigned so that the feelings of the people could be tested. Under those circumstances the Bill was held back last year, an election was held in the Rehoboth Gebiet and the verdict of the voters was convincingly in favour of the Bill and for self-government for Rehoboth.

For the information of hon. members I should like to say that during the past two years since this “constitutional” dispute was resolved, a far better spirit of co-operation and progress has prevailed in Rehoboth. Matters which are, inter alia, receiving attention at present, are matters such as the proper planning of the town of Rehoboth, and the provision of an electricity as well as a water reticulation scheme for the town. Furthermore an overall planning committee for the Gebiet has already been established and it is being proposed to introduce a Bill for the registration of deeds in the Gebiet during the present session. In addition, Rehoboth citizens are already serving on the board of directors of the Rehoboth Development Corporation, the control committee of the Tsumis Breeding Station, the overall planning committee of Rehoboth, and Baster council members of Rehoboth are also playing an active and leading part in the constitutional conference which is at present in progress in Windhoek.

Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that it is of the utmost importance that hon. members of this House should bear four important aspects in mind in the consideration and discussion of this Bill. In the first place they must realize that the Bill is the product of extensive negotiations which were agreed to with the Baster Advisory Council of Rehoboth. In the second place, hon. members should not forget that this Bill reflects the wishes and desires of the citizens of Rehoboth. In the third place this Bill, as far as Rehoboth is concerned, is an historical document which also reflects closely the distinctive, eventful history and paternal laws of the Rehobothers. Last but not least, hon. members should bear in mind that with this Bill a raw wound which has existed for more than 50 years is being healed, that recognition is being granted to the right of self-determination of the citizens of Rehoboth, and that in this way the foundation is being laid for a new dispensation of co-operation with the Baster Gemeinte of the Gebiet.

Mr. Speaker, against this background I should now like to furnish a brief elucidation of the most important provisions of the Bill.

The Preamble:

In the Preamble the commitment of the citizens of Rehoboth to their own traditions and paternal laws is emphasized.

Part I:

This part of the constitution contains the provisions of the Paternal Constitution of 1872 which, through inclusion in this Bill, is again being brought into operation in Rehoboth.

This part of the Bill also makes provision for:

1. (a) The election of a Kaptein who then appoints two citizens to his Kaptein’s Council, in which the executive government of Rehoboth is vested;
2. (b) the election of a Legislative Council of six members representing the citizens and to which the laws which the Kaptein’s Council wishes to make have to be submitted for ratification; and
3. (c) certain provisions with regard to citizenship of Rehoboth.

As hon. members will see, there is perhaps a great deal which could be changed in these provisions, some of which may even appear strange to hon. members. The Advisory Council also realizes that there are deficiencies which will subsequently perhaps have to be rectified or changed, such as the provision that an annual election for the Legislative Council should be held in January. In order to carry out the instructions of the nation, the council was obliged to re-enact the provisions of the Paternal Law. These were provisions from which it was not permitted to deviate.

In any event, the provisions establish a workable system of government which is certainly quite unique in our public administration, but in which certain practical advantages, too, are definitely inherent, such as the vesting of the administrative authority in the hands of the Kaptein, who is elected directly by the people. A further advantage of the provisions is the establishment of a small Legislative Council which is able to meet as frequently as necessary and without undue embellishment, as well as a system of close liaison with the people themselves.

Part II:

Part II of the constitution contains general provisions, inter alia on the design of a distinct flag, the acceptance of a national anthem of their own and a provision that Afrikaans and English shall be the official languages of Rehoboth. In addition it is also being provided in what manner the first election of a Kaptein and members of the Legislative Council shall be held, and at what juncture the Government of Rehoboth shall come into being. Once the Government of Rehoboth is established the present Advisory Council falls away.

Furthermore, it is being provided that the Executive Government shall be vested in the Kaptein’s Council which, together with the Legislative Council, will be able to make laws in respect of all matters referred to in the Schedule. All such legislation has to be submitted to me for further submission to the State President for his assent. Bills thus submitted, may be referred back to the Kaptein’s Council in view of further advice and information which may be given.

Although the Baster Gemeinte has had a separate community fund at its disposal all these years, the constitution now confers greater authorities and powers in regard to revenue in Rehoboth on the Government of Rehoboth, and provision is being made for a Rehoboth Revenue Fund of its own. It is foreseen, however, that the Government of Rehoboth will not be able to manage with its own available sources of revenue, and for that reason there is a provision that an annual grant may be paid into the Rehoboth Revenue Fund from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Republic. This will, however, be done in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Estimates of revenue and expenditure shall also be submitted to me annually, and until such time as the legislature of Rehoboth makes other provision, regular inspections shall be carried out by the Controller and Auditor-General of the Republic in respect of all accountable matters.

Every lawfully constituted court continues to exist until altered or disestablished by the authority having power to do so. However, the legislation contains a provision to the effect that at the coming into being of the Government of Rehoboth the control and administration of the magistrate’s court and the Basterhof in Rehoboth shall vest in the Kaptein’s Council. A separate prison for Rehoboth is also being envisaged.

It is foreseen that the Government of Rehoboth will not initially have sufficient competent and suitable staff at its disposal, and for this reason provision is being made for the secondment of officers to the Government of Rehoboth, provided that such officers shall in all respects remain subject to the laws relating to the Public Service of the Republic. The intention is that these officers will be replaced by suitable Baster officers as these become available.

A provision is also being included to the effect that all executive powers, authorities and functions that have to be exercised in terms of this legislation for bringing this Act into operation and, if necessary, for ensuring the continuation of the administration of Rehoboth in terms of this Act, may be exercised by the Minister.

In the Schedule to the Bill all the matters in respect of which the Kaptein’s Council and the Legislative Council have the power to make laws which will not be inconsistent with this Act, are specified. The matters in regard to which laws may be made are clearly set out in the Schedule and warrant no further elucidation at this stage. Members will also note that the legislative and executive powers which are being conferred on Rehoboth in the Bill, and particularly in the Schedule, are restricted almost throughout in the Schedule to Rehoboth itself. The only exceptions of importance are paragraphs 10 or 20 of the Schedule which deal with electoral matters and the levying of taxes.

Clause 16 of the Bill, in which the Kaptein’s Council and Legislative Council acquire legislative powers in respect of “any citizen of Rehoboth, whether such citizen is or is resident in or outside Rehoboth, but within the territory of South West Africa” should also therefore be read in conjunction with this restriction to the Rehoboth Gebiet. In essence it amounts to the Kaptein’s Council and the Legislative Council only acquiring powers in regard to Rehoboth citizens outside Rehoboth in respect of the matters referred to in paragraphs 10 and 20 of the Schedule.

In addition hon. members will note that in this Bill there is no list of so-called “reserved” matters over which the Kaptein’s Council and Legislative Council do not acquire executive or legislative authority. The reason is simply because it was deemed unnecessary. The Bill makes it clear that only the matters mentioned in the Schedule are being transferred. Matters not listed in the Schedule, such as foreign affairs, military matters, Posts and Telegraphs, Railways, etc., are obviously not being transferred.

Mr. Speaker, a question which could perhaps be asked in conclusion is whether it is advisable or desirable to proceed at this stage of developments in South West Africa with the introduction of this Bill which, as will generally be understood, grants an advanced degree of self-government to Rehoboth. In this regard the following arguments apply:

1. (a) The Baster Council of Rehoboth is very anxious to have the Bill passed as quickly as possible;
2. (b) it would be possible to interpret it as somewhat of a breach of faith to refrain now from introducing the Bill, after the co-operation of Rehoboth has been obtained and their enthusiasm aroused;
3. (c) the conference in South West Africa itself felt that further steps in the political development of the respective peoples should not be held back or come to a halt because of its deliberations; and
4. (d) if a different dispensation were to come about in South West Africa at a later stage, the political dispensation of all the various peoples would in any event have to be adjusted to it.

Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying that we on this side have considered the Bill against the background of our own policy for South West Africa. When the Odendaal plan, which was actually Dr. Verwoerd’s plan for South West Africa, was before this House in 1964, we condemned the political part of the plan and told the Government that it was making a mistake by weakening local government in the Territory and integrating the administration of the Territory so comprehensively with that of the Republic. We predicted that the Government would have to retrace its steps all the way, and that it would have to restore to South West Africa all the powers of which it had divested the Territory and that it would have to lead the Territory as a whole towards self-governing statehood. The Bill which is now before us deals with the Rehoboth Gebied, in other words only a part of South West Africa. However, it supports the principle of increased local government, and it comprises a transfer of powers from this Parliament to South West Africa. In this respect it runs in the direction of the policy which we have always advocated. We know that the Government is keeping back certain powers because a central government has not yet been established in South West Africa. However, we know that such a central government will have to come soon, and all the remaining powers of this Parliament will then of course have to be transferred to the Territory. A second point of policy which emerges in this Bill is that of decentralization of authority within South West Africa. Hon. members know that we have been advocating and pleading for years that certain regions or areas in South West Africa, which have of old had a distinctive political character within South West Africa, should be developed to enjoy the greatest measure of local self-government, and that they should then, in respect of matters of general national importance, be united in a federal framework. We believe that this is the only available constitutional manner in which the interests of cultural groups or national groups that are in the minority can be protected against domination by a majority. The Basters of Rehoboth have, since the time of the German occupation already, been recognized as a community with a distinctive right of existence and with land rights which ought to be respected—which have in fact always been respected by South African governments. Over the years they have developed a strong feeling of solidarity around their own kind and their own land rights.

The Bill before us does not spell it out; it does not tell us what the constitutional position is which Rehoboth, on the basis of what is now being given to it as a start, will have to occupy in a coming independent South West Africa. The hon. the Minister said in his speech that this Bill was “a starting point for further political development”. I am sorry he did not afford us a glimpse of the political development which he envisages in future and of which this is then the starting point. The Bill recognizes the principle of a decentralization of authority—in other words, a division of power within South West Africa. In our opinion this is reconcilable with the basis of a federal state. In this sphere, too, the Bill runs in the direction of our fundamental ideas on the future of South West Africa.

In reality the Bill formally confers on Rehoboth the status of a minority province with a political identity of its own within South West Africa. We believe that it would be wrong not to accord recognition to it. But then we will also have to observe that the community of Rehoboth will in the long run only be able to retain this status if the constitution for local government, which we are conferring upon it here, is going to form part of a further pattern which we think ought to be a federal pattern for South West Africa. I shall not discuss this aspect of the matter any further here, although it is relevant because it has been said that this is the beginning of further political development. However, I am simply mentioning it to reinforce our reason for being able to support this Bill at its Second Reading.

We find it encouraging that a person such as Advocate Eben van Zyl, who is a member of the Executive Committee of South West Africa and one of the three leaders of the National Party at the Constitutional Conference which is at present in progress in Windhoek, said some time ago when he was addressing a conference of 450 Government officials in Windhoek, with reference to the future—I am quoting from the official text—

He added—

I have seldom heard such an excellent testimonial to the position we believe Rehoboth should occupy in a federation in South West Africa. [Interjections.] I hope that members who represent the Whites of South West Africa in this House will endorse the course their leaders are adopting in Windhoek when they rise here to support this Bill.

Because the Bill is based on the principle of, firstly, the relinquishing of authority by this Parliament, by the Republic, to authorities in South West Africa, secondly, the recognition of the historical identity within South West Africa of Rehoboth and the Baster community there; and, thirdly a decentralization of political power wherever geographic-social circumstances make it possible within South West Africa, we shall not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. There is a further important reason why we shall not oppose it, which is that the Baster nation has for years been agitating—the hon. the Minister also referred to this—for the restoration of their local Legislative Council, as it is called, for the restoration of self-government according to their old traditional Kaptain system and for the re-enactment of the old Paternal Constitution of 1872. They admit candidly that the paternal laws are in many respects obsolete, and anyone who glances at the Bill before us will agree with that. They realize that they will have to modernize it, but they should like to do so themselves. We believe that it is a perfectly commendable sentiment that these people want to help themselves. That is another reason why we do not want to oppose the Bill. But I must say that the Government has chosen a bad time to come forward with this Bill. We believe that the Government should have introduced the Bill years ago. Under the circumstances in which it is now being introduced it will undoubtedly lead to misunderstanding and criticism in the outside world. But I shall return to this point at a later stage.

What we, as a responsible Parliament, cannot ignore is that the Baster community of Rehoboth has itself insisted on local self-government. In fact, it was the subject of the latest election for the Baster Advisory Council of Rehoboth, and the party of Dr. Africa, who was in favour of the restoration of the so-called Paternal Constitution, won the election convincingly. The hon. the Minister and speakers on the opposite side must not tell us that this Bill as such was before the voters of Rehoboth. Bills are not presented to voters. As far as we know, they did not express an opinion on the form and the wording of this Bill What they did in fact express an opinion on was the underlying principle, namely that the Paternal Constitution should be restored, and that the Kaptein and the Legislative Council should be elected by themselves and be vested with executive powers. We believe it to be an important consideration that the wishes of the Baster Community of Rehoboth should be heeded as far as possible. I am saying “as far as possible” deliberately, that we should heed the wishes of the voters of Rehoboth “as far as possible”, and also those of other regions if similar cases should occur. This Parliament has certain responsibilities towards South West Africa, responsibilities which we cannot simply put aside. That is why we are saying that these wishes should be heeded as far as possible. We must take into consideration that South West Africa as a whole, as a unity, has been entrusted to administration and care of South Africa. Our mandate has been defined, and we accept that the Territory has an international status. We cannot alter or modify that international status unilaterally, i.e. without the co-operation of the international community. To mention an example: If the Whites of South West Africa were unilaterally to request us to incorporate that portion of South West Africa which falls under the jurisdiction of the White Legislative Assembly, in the Republic of South Africa, then this Parliament would not be able to do so.

If a majority of the Ovambos, for example, were to ask us—I know they are not in favour of this, but if they were to ask us—to declare Owambo a sovereign independent state, then we would not be able to do that on our own either. Similarly, if the electors of Rehoboth were to say that they wanted to become an independent state, we as Parliament would not be able to accede to that. As Parliament, we have a framework within which we can act. The position has been accepted by the Government that it is a territory with an international status over which South Africa does not have unilateral control. It is not part of our sovereignty—that is the reason, Sir, why we cannot act as we would like to do. All the population groups of South West Africa are shareholders in the whole. Therefore we cannot violate the integrity of the Territory in favour of some population group or other. We cannot put the unity of the Territory up for auction. In fact, the Government has guaranteed to UNO the preservation of the integrity of South West Africa. The concept “self-determination and independence” for South West Africa, as the Government and all of us accept it, relates to the territory as a whole, unless of course we obtain the co-operation of the international community for, say, a partition of the territory, provided its various population groups would want such a thing. I am mentioning this, Sir, because I want to indicate that the will of the voters of any population group—and we are dealing here with the will of the voters of Rehoboth— should be seen within this framework. Consequently we as a responsible Parliament are only able to comply with the wishes of the voters of Rehoboth in so far as they want local self-government and not complete, full, political independence.

The fact of the matter now is that the Baster Advisory Council under the leadership of Dr. Africa, who is at the same time the chairman of the Constitutional Conference in Windhoek, have expressed a very clear opinion in regard to this matter. I have here a copy of a memorandum submitted by the Baster Advisory Council to the Government, and I want to criticize the hon. the Minister for not having submitted this report to Parliament in the form of a memorandum.

But you have it then.

The Bill in its preamble mentions the “proposals” of the Baster Advisory Council. Therefore they ought to have been submitted to Parliament by way of a memorandum. Only a few copies were made available to a few members.

I thought you were going to thank me for having given it to you.

I am pointing out what the Minister ought to have done, timeously, when the Bill was introduced. A few of us received copies, but only much later. I think it was the Minister’s duty to have submitted it as a document to Parliament. We had to go looking for it. There is not even a date on the document. In any case, the point I want to make is that in paragraph 11 of the report to the Government the people of Rehoboth made it abundantly clear that their request for the re-enactment of the Paternal Constitution was not intended as an endeavour to achieve a kind of homeland independence. I want to quote the full text. The hon. the Minister should look at paragraph 11. It reads as follows—

It is absolutely clear. In personal conversations which five of us had approximately 14 days ago in Windhoek with quite a number of the leaders, inter alia, too, with leaders from Rehoboth, they emphasized this and in fact requested us to help eliminate the impression which the form of the Bill creates, viz. that they are aspiring to full political independence, when the Bill was before the House of Assembly. They were completely aware of the fact that within South West Africa, particularly among the Coloured group and the leaders of the Herero group sitting with them in the Constitutional Conference, there was serious criticism of the form of the Bill as well as its timing, in spite of what the hon. the Minister said towards the end of his speech. We heard that criticism ourselves, as expressed by those people. They want nothing to do with anything along the lines of the Governments’ policy in the Republic of partition or of little independent homelands.

This brings me to the criticism which we on this side have against the Bill. The Preamble, certain provisions and the general terminology of the Bill creates the impression—I emphasize the word “impression”; I am not dealing now with what the motives of the Government or the hon. the Minister could have been—that we are dealing with an independent State-in-the-making, something which is precisely what the Baster leaders wanted to avoid. No one his his right mind would ever dream that Rehoboth with its 19 000 people, which is the size of one electoral division in the Republic, could become an independent state, and even to think along those lines is too ridiculous for words. According to their report the Baster leaders themselves wish to avoid such an impression gaining ground. The hon. the Minister let it appear that they had looked at the Bill, and that is something which I accept. However, if they had looked at the Bill as it now appears in its final form, they were perhaps not careful enough to recognize its implications in some respects. I do not want to anticipate the Committee Stage of the Bill now, but to quote only a few examples, I want to point out that the Bill makes provision for the establishment of a “Government” for Rehoboth. Please note that a capital “G” is used. In the same Bill reference is made to the “Government of the Republic of South Africa”. In this case, too, there is a capital “G”. Surely it is absurd, in respect of constitutional status, to place the administration of Rehoboth on the same footing as that of the Government of the Republic. There can be only one Government—with a capital “G”—in a country. The Legislative Assembly of South West Africa has far more powers than the Legislative Council of the Basters will receive, but the Legislative Assembly is not referred to officially as the Government of South West Africa, but as the Administration of South West Africa. I think this is something to which ought to be given because it is the kind of thing which could create misunderstanding and cause the idea to gain ground that the Government is here creating an independent State-in-the-making in terms of its homeland policy.

Did you make certain whether that was not their wish?

What is involved here is not their wishes. I have in fact stated that we in this House have a duty. There are certain wishes which the Whites have, and with which we cannot comply. We have an obligation to refrain from doing anything here which could cause misunderstanding to gain ground in the outside world. In any event the Basters asked us to eliminate that misunderstanding. Furthermore, where the Bill refers to “self-government” we shall propose that the expression “local self-government” be used, and that the words “within the territory of South West Africa” be added. If the Government is being honest when it says that it is not engaged here in the partitioning off of a region of South West Africa, I cannot see what objection it can have to our proposal. During the Committee Stage we shall make other positive proposals. Inter alia we want paragraph 11 of the memorandum, in which the Basters themselves state unequivocally that they want local self-government and not an independent status, to be clearly incorporated in the Preamble to the Bill so that there can be no doubt about what is being passed here. As far as we are concerned, it is essential to counteract hostile propaganda. Why place hostile propaganda into the hands of the outside world or the UN unnecessarily? Misunderstanding should be eliminated. We therefore want these things to be removed from the Bill. We do not want citizenship of the Rehoboth Gebiet to be incompatible with a future general citizenship of South West Africa.

We are also strongly opposed to the provision in the Bill which will give the Legislative Assembly of Rehoboth control over Rehoboth citizens permanently or temporarily resident outside the Gebiet. None of our provincial councils—regardless of the fact that it is in a limited sphere, as the hon. the Minister consequently indicated in his speech—have such powers outside their area. We feel that this is an infringement of the right of other recognized regions in South West Africa to demand local government for themselves in their own regions. We feel that it intrudes on the spheres of others, and anticipates the programme with which the Constitutional Conference may perhaps come forward for South West Africa as a whole. I think that creating the impression that one wishes to anticipate the comprehensive taste of the Constitutional Conference should be avoided. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it is the duty of Parliament to grant credibility to that constitutional conference.

Unfortunately there is also a racial provision in the Bill which we cannot support. Colour discrimination is being introduced here. Clause 33 makes it compulsory that if a White person, presumably because he is White, is sentenced to imprisonment by a court in Rehoboth, he shall be transferred forthwith to a prison in the Republic of South Africa. We cannot accept this type of colour discrimination in legislation, particularly legislation relating to South West Africa. I am surprised that a Government which has committed itself to the elimination of colour discrimination is still able to come to Parliament with such a proposal.

I should just like to summarize our position. It is our policy that the territorial integrity of South West Africa should be recognized; that South West Africa as a territory should be led to sovereign independence as soon as possible; that the power which Parliament has over South West Africa and its people should be handed over to South West Africa and to authorities in South West Africa without delay; and that decentralization of authority within the framework of a federal structure for South West Africa is the best way of ensuring the existence of minority groups and avoiding the danger of the domination of all by some groups. Because we see that the fundamental principle of the Bill before us is not in conflict with the principles which I have just stated, we shall not oppose the Second Reading. However, I have mentioned that we have important objections to certain aspects of the Bill and that the Bill is cast in a form which could cause certain misunderstandings which should be eliminated. If the Government wants the Bill to be acceptable in its final stage as well then I want to say that we shall make positive proposals during the Committee Stage. We hope that the attitude of the Government will be as positive.

In conclusion: The usual contention from the Government side is that matters relating to South West Africa are of a delicate nature. We agree with that. We only hope that the Government will realize this itself. If the Government had been aware of its duty and had really been concerned about the delicacy of South West African matters then it ought to have submitted the Bill to and discussed it with the Oppositon before coming to this House with it. I am mentioning this because we can expect to receive considerably more amending Bills in regard to South West Africa, in the near future. If the Government has the wisdom which a government ought to have, it will try to avoid dealing with legislation relating to South West Africa on an ordinary party-political basis in future.

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand it is something to be grateful for that the Opposition adopts the standpoint that they are not going to oppose the Bill at this reading. On the other hand, however, there are certain things the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said which I deplore. At one stage the hon. member represented a seat in South West Africa and he ought therefore to know better.

The hon. member referred, inter alia, to the self-determination of South West Africa as a whole. I want to tell him, and provide him with proof, that every people in South West Africa has the right to self-determination, including the Rehoboth people. I want to quote from section 1(2) of the Charter of UNO—

Hon. members must note that the word “peoples” is used. However, that is not how the original text of this article read after the Dumbarton Oaks Convention. In fact the four great powers, viz. Britain, Russia, China and America, effected an amendment. The original read quite differently, viz.—

However, the four great powers then decided that the following should be added—

It is interesting to note that when the matter was discussed in the General Assembly, where the charter was given its final form, a lawyer like Henry Rollin asked what this meant. He said that we could speak about the self-determination of states but asked what “the self-determination of peoples” meant. He asked whether it meant that the French in Canada had the right of self-determination, whether the Irish in Ireland had the right of self-determination, etc. The eventual outcome of the matter was that they decided unanimously to insert this amendment and to emphasize that all the peoples in countries with a diversity of peoples had the right of self-determination. I do not deem it necessary to go into this further.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a very good speech, but I strongly resent his jeopardizing the present constitutional conference in South West Africa and the future of the six hon. members who represent South West Africa in Parliament, by recklessly making quotations and making predictions in connection with the constitutional conference. He knows what our standpoint is. Nevertheless he comes along here and states that we want a federation in South West Africa. Not one word of this is true. To us, all options are open as far as the future of South West Africa is concerned. What did the hon. member himself say at the symposium in South West Africa the other day? The Opposition in South West now call themselves the Federal Party with reference to the federal policy of the party to which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout belongs, and their mouthpiece in South West is the Suidwes-Afrikaner. I quote from a report which appeared in that newspaper on 27 February, in which the hon. member for Bezuidenhout was reported as follows—

He then goes on to say, as he is time and again reported as having said in the article—

He then goes on to say—

It should not be necessary for me to explain to that hon. member what the difference is between revolution and evolution in international law. All the hon. member did was to attempt to cause the conference in South West Africa to fail, because it would suit his book and the book of the UP for the conference in South West Africa to fail. He has no interest in the future of South West Africa, as I have, and as the hon. representatives of South West Africa in this House have. That is why he does not give two pins for the future of South West Africa. I shall come back to the hon. member later.

I first want to deal with this issue on a historical basis because I think that of all the members of this House, I have perhaps done the most research in connection with the various peoples of South West Africa. I am a member of the Archives Commission and I looked up the original documents to obtain further details in connection with the peoples of South West. It is interesting to note that the first miscegenation took place in the Cape as a result of a policy of the D.E.I.C. to bring about friendly relations between the various indigenous peoples and the Whites. As a result Eva, for example, a Hottentot woman who grew up in the household of Jan van Riebeeck, married one Pieter van Meerhof, a White traveller. This took place under the rule of the second governor, Zacharias Wagenaar, and was intended to promote good relations between the indigenous peoples and the Whites. It is very interesting to note that the cost of the wedding feast was borne by the D.E.I.C. As a dowry they paid Eva R20 and did her bridegroom, Pieter van Meerhof, the favour of appointing him as a doctor at a salary of £3 per month.

It is interesting to note that we only began to hear about some of the Baster communities—I am not referring to Coloureds now—in the latter half of the 18th century. They were established in the north-west, where the Baster communities had developed at places like Kamiesberg, Zakrivier, Amandelboom—now called Williston—Kommaggas, Pella and other places. There it was a definite policy of missionaries like Schmelen, Wimmer and others to marry non-White women. They were constantly encouraging the Whites to marry the non-Whites. In terms of their laws, if a White person married a non-White woman, he received a farm as a dowry. Nevertheless, an English missionary by the name of John Campbell arrived there in 1813 and told them that the word “Bastards” in English—up to now they have been known as Baster communities—was not the right word for them, and that they should change it. He persuaded them to adopt the name “Griquas” because at the time they were established at Klaarwater, which later became Griquatown. A large group of these Basters did in fact leave there to trek to South West Africa. In 1847 they crossed the Orange River border. In February 1868 at Warmbad, the Paternal Laws, to which the hon. the Minister referred, were drawn up for the first time. Not only those Acts, but a great many others were also drawn up. I have them here. One of the most important was one dated 31 January 1872, dealing with the Kaptein, the Kaptein’s Council, the Legislative Council, civil rights and decisions. They also have another Act dated 31 January 1872, dealing with the judges, field-comets and officials. There is one dated 27 February 1872, another dated 13 March 1872, another dated 10 April 1872 and another dated 8 July 1872, all of which are regarded as their Paternal Laws. It is interesting to note that they then moved further north, towards South West Africa, and there their leader, Hermanus van Wyk, went to Okahandja, where he met Maharero, the chief of the Hereros, and Abraham Swartbooi, who was really the lawful owner of the present Rehoboth Baster area. They did not call themselves Griquas, but Basters. In Rehoboth, too, they applied the law that if a White married a Baster girl, he received a farm as a gift from the Rehoboth government.

It is interesting to note that a dispute then arose and they first had to rent the place because Swartbooi did not want to sell it. Initially they had to pay a horse a year to Swartbooi for the rent of the territory. At one state they were short of water and they then maintained that they could not develop the territory unless they bought it, and eventually the territory was bought at a price of 100 horses and five wagons. The date of the agreement is given as 23 December 1857. However this is a misprint in the document because the year should be 1875 and not 1857. The Rev. Böhm maintains that the contract was put in writing but apparently the contract was lost when the documents of the Department of Bantu Affairs were lost in a fire at Cape Town. Today no-one knows what became of the document. Nevertheless, Hermanus van Wyk succeeded in obtaining the territory and it does not matter how this came about. When the Germans came into power they concluded a treaty of friendship and subsequently a treaty relating to the defence of Rehoboth on 15 September 1885 and 26 July 1895 respectively, which gave Germany absolute sovereignty over the Rehoboth territory. For example, section 1 provided that the German flag would be hoisted in Rehoboth. However, it is very interesting to note that after the death of Hermanus van Wyk in 1905, the Germans abolished the post of “Kaptein”. I obtained the details of this from the original documents. It appears that they received instructions that from then on there would no longer be a “Kaptein”. However, Cornelius van Wyk, the son of Hermanus van Wyk, continued to be the Kaptein of Rehoboth in the eyes of the people. They also called him Neels van Wyk, but the Germans called him the Gemeindevorsteher, which is more or less the same as “leader” in English. When the Union troops took over, a deputation from the Rehoboth Basters approached the late Gen. Botha in Swakopmund and consulted him as to what was to become of the Rehoboth “Gebiet”. I shall read to you an instruction from the Secretary of Defence dated 9 June 1916—

In other words, the political position as it was left by the Germans was accepted. That is how the position there continued.

It is interesting to note that the Rehoboth Basters sold more and more of their land to Whites, as would have happened in every Bantu area in South Africa if we had not protected the Black people of South Africa. The tragedy is that in the year 1905, Magistrate Bötllin, the then magistrate at Rehoboth, pointed out that the inhabitants of Rehoboth had already sold 250 ha of their land, one-sixth of the total area, to Whites during the previous seven years. He calculated that within 50 years they would have bartered away the whole of Rehoboth to Whites. That is why the then Union Government proclaimed Rehoboth as a territory and granted them a certain degree of self-government. An agreement was concluded with them on 27 August 1923 but various factions developed in Rehoboth which I should not like to go into now. For example, in 1924 there was an election and the majority party refused to take part in the election. The minority party won the election and subsequently the majority party held their own election, won all the seats and said that they were the legal government. Subsequently the Union Government issued proclamation 31 of 1924. It came into effect on 10 December 1924. This proclamation totally abolished the office of “Kaptein”, took away all the powers of the “Kaptein”, the Council and the officials and placed everything in the hands of the magistrate at Rehoboth. And today we have the privilege of having one of the former magistrates of Rehoboth sitting in the Government officials’ bench.

That, in broad outline, is more or less the history of the Rehoboth Basters. I should also like to pay tribute to this Baster community in Rehoboth. If one examines the entire history, one notices one outstanding characteristic of the way in which they developed, viz. that they adopted and lived in accordance with the Christian faith, and that is why I am pleased that in this Bill, too, the Minister mentioned the following in the preamble to the Bill—

This has been a characteristic of the Rehoboth Basters throughout. Another very fine characteristic which we should in fact have remembered in this year of the Afrikaans Language Festival is the fact that the Rehoboth Basters have retained Afrikaans as their home language throughout. This Bill, of course, lays down that Afrikaans and English are the official languages of the Rehoboth Baster community, but they have retained Afrikaans as their home language throughout. The third tribute I want to pay to them is that throughout their history they have never lived lawlessly, but have always had laws, and drew up a constitution for themselves. From the earliest days when they were living at Komaggas, they drew up the 14 laws and subsequently they drew up their Paternal Laws and they are bound to them. Today we are placing this legislation on the Statute Book for them.

The legislation represents a milestone in the history of Rehoboth and crowns the colourful history of the Rehoboth people. Today I want to pay tribute not only to the White officials who have served there as magistrates and in other capacities, and who have served with the greatest dedication, but also to the Basters of Rehoboth, like Dr. Africa, who feels that it is their territory and who has ploughed back the learning he has acquired into the territory belonging to his people. He returned to his people to uplift them because after all, what is finer than for a man to come back to his own people to uplift them? We are today engaged in the conference in South West Africa and Dr. Africa is one of the outstanding figures. If you have seen him on television and at Press conferences abroad, you will realize what a distinguished man he is.

Unfortunately there is also a history of division, which was caused chiefly by the fact that a section of the Rehoboth Basters intermarried with a White group, whereas another section did not do so. There is still conflict between those two factions today, and it is a pity that this should be so. I hope that this legislation, which provides for their own national anthem and their own flag, will contribute towards making Rehoboth a great territory, a prosperous territory, a territory where unanimity prevails, a territory in which each Rehobother—I do not like the word “Baster” and furthermore it is spelled out in the legislation that they will no longer be called Rehoboth Basters, but the people of Rehoboth—will make use of these privileges.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked how far these people would progress under the legislation we have here. The answer is obvious: They have self-determination in the full sense of the word. If they were to come forward next year with the request that they wanted to replace their Paternal Laws with something else, then it would most definitely be the duty of this Parliament to comply with their request. The legislation before the House today cannot be regarded as the end of the road as far as Rehoboth is concerned. A great many improvements could still be effected, and I believe that as Rehoboth develops, this legislation will be adapted from time to time. However, it is their sovereign and inalienable right to exercise their right of self-determination. However, they will have the right of self-determination. The right of self-determination is not only for great peoples like America, France and Germany; it is the right, too, of the 19 000 people who are living in Rehoboth at the moment, and of the approximately 10 000 Rehobothers living outside that territory.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he accepts in principle that it would be possible, if the Rehobothers were to request this Parliament to become fully independent within the South West African territory, that this could then take place?

Most definitely so, yes. Every people in South West Africa has the inalienable right of self-determination. Hon. members opposite always like to talk about the Declaration of Human Rights. I want to put it to them that self-determination is the highest right of man. If a people cannot be free, how can the individual be free? If a people is enslaved and does not have the right of self-determination, how can the ordinary citizen of that people enjoy human rights? That is why it is my argument that self-determination is an inalienable right of every person. The right of a people to freedom and self-determination is the highest claim which a people can make. In Africa, South Africa is the champion of true human rights. Nor do we begrudge this freedom to any other people either. That, too, is why it is the policy of this Government to place all people in this country on the road to self-determination and to enable them to become sovereign and independent in time.

You are dreaming again!

Now of course, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is going to ask me whether Rehoboth is viable.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the member how a people which does not have territory of its own, which has to share the same territory with other peoples can ever exercise fully the right of self-determination.

I could give the hon. member the example of South Africa. The hon. member will of course want to lump the Transkei, Vendaland, Bophuthatswana and all the other territories together and make one country of them. However there is as little possibility of doing that as there is of combining countries like Germany, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland and Italy into one conglomeration and trying to make a single people out of all of them.

That is why I say that the greatest right a people can ever demand is the right of self-determination. Only then can the individual lay claim to those so-called, much-praised true human rights.

Time is catching up with me and there is still a great deal I want to say. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout discussed this matter in the context of the constitutional conference in South West Africa. Today I should like to make a very friendly and earnest appeal to hon. members of the United Party and the Progressive Party—if they would like to see how responsible people determine their own future—to go to the Turnhalle in Windhoek where representatives of the 11 population groups of South West Africa are engaged in their constitutional conference. Those people have learned the lesson of Angola, of Mozambique and of all the other parts of the world. They are setting an example of how responsible people reject the chaos and disorder which has prevailed elsewhere in the world and are seriously, and without excessive haste, discuss their own future. There is no haste; the future of a people is not decided within minutes, nor is it decided overnight. It is a lengthy process. There are people whose future has been determined over centuries.

Now I want to make a further appeal to those hon. members. We are dealing here with legislation relating to Rehoboth, legislation which confirms those things to which the Rehobothers may rightly lay claim. We concede that there are many open possibilities. If the people of Rehoboth were to ask, tomorrow or next year, to be allowed to integrate with the Hereros or with the Damaras, or whoever, this would be regarded as part of their right of self-determination and they would not be stopped, with the proviso that the other people also wanted to integrate. If the Hereros declared themselves prepared to integrate with the Rehobothers, then in terms of their right of self-determination they would be free to do as they chose. This Government would have no alternative but to allow it. Nothing can stop them from implementing their own decisions.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. members opposite do not have the vaguest idea of the meaning of the right of self-determination. Apparently they will go to their graves without understanding it, too, because the essence of their policy is still the imperialists of the 17th and 18th centuries. [Interjections.] The ghosts of Kitchener and Milner still haunt this House. Those hon. members think of South Africa as one great country which they can appropriate for themselves, that they can therefore lay claim to the Transkei, to Bophuthatswana and the others. Just like the British Empire, they want to appropriate as much as possible for themselves in order eventually to establish one great empire.

Mr. Speaker, I must come back to the Bill. I must say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout provoked me a great deal. We, the representatives of South West Africa in this House, are aware of the vitally important decision which must be taken by the representatives of the various population groups there. That is why I want to appeal once again to hon. members here not, in heaven’s name, to try to misuse this legislation to cause the conference in South West Africa to fail. If that conference fails, it will not only be to the detriment of the Whites in South Africa; it will also be a crime against the non-White peoples of South West Africa.