I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before Parliament of which notice has just been given is one about the contents of which we have no exact information, but it is a piece of legislation with a history. That history goes back to the last Session of Parliament when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development introduced one of the most far-reaching pieces of legislation in respect of Bantu administration that has ever been before this House. That Bill was subsequently withdrawn and a limited, modified Bill was placed before the House. It was indicated, however, at that time that this was no indication that there had been a change of heart on the part of the Government, or that there was any departure from the provisions of the Bill in so far as the policy of the Government was concerned. It was made very clear to us that we could expect that legislation during this Session of Parliament.

Now, during the recess certain statements were made to the Press, one by the hon. the Deputy Minister reported in the Star of 6 December. It was officially confirmed to-day that the Government is to go ahead with the introduction of the most far-reaching apartheid measure ever drafted, consisting of the clauses of the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which were held over, a measure which will give the Government complete control over the jobs, homes and movements of all Africans outside the reserves. The report reads as follows—

That was in December. Then in January there was a statement attributed to the Minister of Bantu Administration himself, in which, as the result of an interview, it was reported that the Bill was the same in principle to the section of last year’s Bantu Laws Amendment Bill which did not get through Parliament in time was held over, although there were some alterations. Then on 13 January there was another report, which was as follows—

Now, broadly the principles of the Bill which was introduced last year and to which violent exception was taken by this side of the House were, I think, three-fold. The first of those principles was that Bantu labour seemed to be regarded as being members of a vast floating pool of labour, from which individual units could be detached from time to time, and which were regarded as essentially transferable. Secondly, the Bill provided that the Minister of Bantu Administration would have powers of a most revolutionary kind in respect of the control of Bantu labour in the Republic. In fact, that Bill gave the Minister far greater powers than the Minister of Labour himself has in respect of the control and direction of Bantu labour in the Republic.

How does the Leader of the Opposition know what the contents of this Bill are?

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the point you put. I have said that the main principles of the Bill, on the authority of the Minister and the Deputy Minister, are the same as the Bill which was before the House last year, and there were three main principles in the Bill before us last year. The first had to do with the question of a labour pool and the transfer of a labour unit. The second had to do with a vast extension of the powers granted to the Minister of Bantu Administration. Now, Sir, you are correct in intimating that I cannot go into the details of those proposals, but they are powers so vast that they place the Minister of Bantu Administration in virtual control of the economic development of this country. Then there was a third characteristic of that Bill. It was that the Bill deprived the Bantu in our urban areas of any permanent right of residence whatever. It removed his last remaining residual right of permanent residence and of permanent family life in the great Bantu townships near our industrial areas. I said at the time that the only legislation in the world which I knew of which compared with that…

Yes, but I am afraid that is irrelevant.

I have here three Press statements. [Interjections.] I know it is quite easy for those hon. members to repudiate their own Minister. I know they would be only too happy to do so, particularly the agricultural community. But I have been trying to outline the three main principles of the Bill, and those principles are still the same. We were violently opposed to it and we indicated that its main principle was completely opposed to United Party policy in respect of the treatment of the urban Bantu. [Interjection.] For that reason we are against this first reading. We want no Bill of this kind before this House.

The Leader of the Opposition wishes to object to the introduction of this Bill at this stage, and he bases his whole objection on certain hypothetical statements. The hypothetical statement he makes is that there were certain newspaper reports.

Order! I have already ruled the hon. the Leader of the Opposition out of order.

During this Session we have already passed 21 Bills. Bills which have gone very quickly through this House …

Order! That is not relevant.

… because the word “Bantu” did not appear in them. So far we have been unable to get the Opposition to show any life.

Order! That is not relevant.

Then I come to the third point that the previous Leader of the Opposition …

That is not relevant either.

Sir, you do not even know what I am going to say. With all respect, I wish to make a very serious point. When a certain Bill was introduced in this House, the previous Leader of the Opposition committed the United Party to this attitude at the first reading of that Bill. That is the point I want to make and I think, with respect, Sir, that I may make that point. The attitude to which he committed them was this that the introduction of a Bill would only be opposed if it was obviously unconstitutional but that if it was not, the attitude of the Opposition was that the Minister should be heard. I just want to quote what the hon. gentleman said on that occasion. Dr. Malan introduced a Bill at the time and Mr. Strauss said the following—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition comes this afternoon and lodges an insignificant objection to this motion. I repeat that he is doing that for one reason only and that is because this is Bantu legislation.

Sir, I shall naturally support the Leader of the Opposition in his motion to oppose leave to introduce. I realize that the rules of the House make it very difficult to give the reasons therefor, but I must say in reply to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that although it is unusual to oppose the first reading of a Bill because one has not seen the contents thereof, we are in fact dealing with an unusual subject inasmuch as this Bill or certainly the basic principles of it, are well known to every member of this House. The hon. the Minister and indeed the hon. member for Heilbron who is a member of the Native Affairs Commission have assured the public of South Africa that it was only the exigencies of time which prevented the full Bill from being put before this House last year. All of us therefore are aware of the basic contents of the Bill which is going to be Tabled this afternoon. The hon. the Deputy-Minister himself has told South Africa that he has a basic principle which he intends to enforce and to extend, and that is that the presence of the Bantu in the White sector can be justified only by the need for his labour. We are entitled therefore—and the hon. the Deputy-Minister nods his head in assent—to assume that that is the basic concept of the Bill which is coming before the House. Without going into any details I wish to say that as far as I am concerned the very last thing that this Government should be doing this day and this age is to introduce further restriction in South Africa …

Order! The hon. member is now going into details.

I do not intend to go any further into details, Sir, I simply wish to say that the direction which this Bill is taking is obvious to everybody; the hon. the Minister has admitted it himself, and I believe it to be exactly the opposite direction to that which South Africa should be following, and I shall therefore oppose the motion for leave to introduce the Bill.

I must really congratulate the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She has made out a much better case that the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition should learn from the hon. member for Houghton how to object to a first reading. Sir, she is really teaching hon. members of the Opposition.

Order! The hon. member himself must not start teaching.

The hon. member for Houghton has told the House frankly why she objects to leave to introduce. She is opposed to the first reading because the Bill deals with Bantu. I want to know from the United Party whether that is the reason why they are opposed to the first reading? Is it because the word “Bantu” is used here? The hon. member for Houghton said very clearly that she seconded the objection of the Leader of the Opposition because this was legislation which would place certain restrictions on the Bantu. That was the only reason she advanced. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has not made out any case. He read out a number of newspaper cuttings and tried to avoid the issue. I want them to reply to me: Is the reason why they are opposed to the first reading the fact that this is Bantu legislation?

Order! The hon. member has already made that point twice.

The Opposition will have all the opportunity they want during the second-reading debate to state their case. What kind of democratic Parliament do they wish us to have in South Africa if they refuse to let the Minister state his case? I have never yet witnessed such undemocratic, unparliamentary action. I think they are making a laughingstock of themselves.

It is all very well for the hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) to talk about a democratic Parliament. Sir, one of the reasons why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has objected to the introduction of this Bill is that it will turn South Africa into an undemocratic country, never mind about an undemocratic Parliament. But let me say to the hon. members for Wakkerstroom and Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) that there is one big difference between the precedents which the hon. member for Heilbron quoted and this, and that is that we know what is in this Bill. The wording of this motion is precisely the same as the wording of the motion with regard to the same Bill as we have seen it twice before, and hon. members must not forget that we have had this Bill before the House on two previous occasions. On the first occasion, in a moment of some extreme aberration, the hon. the Minister of Information described this as a Bill to relieve racial friction in South Africa. You see, therefore, Sir, if we do not know all the details of the Bill, if the example of the hon. the Minister of Information is anything to go by, then we might perhaps be forgiven just a little. But, Sir, I believe that there are many reasons why this Bill, the contents of which are known to us, should be opposed. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has indicated why it should be opposed. I believe that one of the most important reasons why this House should not allow the introduction of this Bill at this stage is that it will stamp South Africa’s image with totalitarianism. Surely that is a good enough reason for refusing leave to introduce this Bill because it will so damage the name of South Africa that it will cause South Africa to pass beyond the pale of Western democratic countries. Surely, Sir, that is a good reason for not allowing this Bill to come onto the floor of this House, for not allowing it to come onto the Order Paper. Surely any Bill which treats individuals, which treats the Bantu …

Order! I cannot allow any further discussion along those lines.

No, Sir, I am not going to discuss the details, but it is a Bill nevertheless which ceases to acknowledge the existence of people as individuals.

Order! The hon. member says that he will not go into details and then he promptly proceeds to do so.

Very well, Sir, I shall not go into any more details, but I want to say this also in support of what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said: This Bill, without giving the details of the powers which are granted, nevertheless gives the Minister of Bantu Administration powers which no other Minister or combination of Ministers has ever had in the history of any democratic country.

Order! The hon. member cannot proceed along those lines.

May I then say that this Bill should be opposed for the reasons given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We know what is in the Bill.

How do you know?

We know what is in it.

Order! The hon. member need not take notice of interjections.

It was the hon. the Deputy Minister, Sir, who led the interjections. Sir, I believe that the Deputy Minister will not deny that this Bill does what we say it does. I am sure he is not going to deny that this is a Bill to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred. We are utterly and completely opposed to any legislation of this sort coming before this House, because not only does it not do credit to this Parliament or to this House but it does no credit to South Africa at a time when our credit is already somewhat low through the actions of this Government.

I think the action of the hon. members of the Opposition is simply shocking. Twenty-five Bills have already been introduced this Session and hon. members have granted leave for their introduction without knowing the details of a great many of them. The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) says this measure will give us a bad name in the world outside and that type of nonsense. In respect of how many Acts have they said the same thing in the past, Sir? They have said that about practically every measure this Government has introduced.

What does he care?

Yes, as if they care whether or not we have a bad name in the world outside! Mr. Speaker, you have allowed the hon. member to refer to it—I admit very reluctantly—but I think you should just allow me to refute what he has said, even though you do so reluctantly. They use every piece of legislation to give South Africa a bad name in the world outside. They will grasp at anything to besmirch South Africa’s good name. They refuse to defend South Africa’s good name in the world outside. What does this motion ask? The hon. the Deputy Minister asks for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911. Has the hon. member for Durban (North) any objection to the Native Labour Regulation Act of 1911 being amended sometimes or does he not want it ever to be amended? He is dead silent, Sir. The Deputy Minister also asks for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Native Service Contract Act of 1932. Has the hon. member any objection to that? He does not even know whether or not he objects to it, but he objects to the Deputy Minister introducing the Bill. The Minister also asks for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Native Trust and Land Act, 1936, the Natives (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951, the Native Services Levy Act, 1952, the Natives (Abolition of Passes and Co-ordination of Documents) Act, 1952. Has the hon. member any objection to that? Hon. members of the Opposition are continually objecting to the pass laws; they are continually objecting to the influx control measures. The hon. Deputy Minister now asks for leave to amend those Acts and they refuse to grant him leave to introduce. How do they know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to meet them? The Deputy Minister moreover asks for leave to amend the Natives (Prohibition of Interdicts) Act, 1956, and the Bantu Beer Act, 1962. Have they any objection to that? Supposing the Deputy Minister wants to make Bantu beer freely available, what about that?

May I ask a question?

Yes, the hon. member may put his question.

Can the hon. member tell us whether these Bills will be amended in a way which is acceptable to us?

I do not know; I have not yet seen the Bills, and I am not so suspicious of the Minister that I take it that everything he does will harm South Africa. They have not as yet seen the Bills, Sir. The Deputy Minister moreover asks for leave to amend the Better Administration of Designated Areas Act, 1963. Why do they not want to allow that? They have been asking for that for a long time. The procedure which is followed here is simply the ordinary democratic procedure. The Minister asks for leave to introduce a Bill. If they do not agree with him they can oppose the legislation during the second-reading debate and in the Committee Stage and at the third-reading debate. I have always regarded this Leader of the Opposition as a better Leader than the previous Leader of the Opposition. I want to quote what the previous Leader of the Opposition said about this question of leave to introduce. As I have said I thought this Leader was a better Leader than the previous Leader of the Opposition, not that he would have made a good Leader. But what did Mr. Strauss say about the question of leave to introduce a Bill? On that occasion leave was sought to introduce a very important Bill, the Separate Representation of Voters Act Validation and Amendment Bill. Dr. Malan asked for leave to introduce a Bill which would take the Coloured voters off the Common Role—something terrible in their eyes—but did the democratic Mr. Strauss refuse to grant him leave? No, he was too big a democrat to do that; that is all I can say in his favour. I want to quote what he said (col. 6)—

who was the Leader of the Labour Party of the day and who refused at that time to grant leave to introduce. He did the very undemocratic thing which the Leader of the Opposition is doing here to-day. That is the type of company in which he finds himself to-day, Sir. He finds himself in the company of people like Mr. Hepple, a leftist who is nearly a communist. Mr. Strauss went on—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting what the previous Leader of the Opposition said when somebody was so foolish as to refuse to grant leave to introduce a Bill.

Was that not a Joint Sitting?

What does it matter whether it was a Joint Sitting? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition suggests that it makes a difference. The procedure followed at a Joint Sitting is exactly the same as that followed in this House; exactly the same procedure is followed in the Other Place.

It is the same principle.

It is exactly the same principle. I continue to quote what the previous Leader said—

Does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition want to tell me that the Deputy Minister is acting illegally?

I say you know nothing about this matter.

I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is proud of that remark? The previous Leader of the Opposition refused to grant leave to introduce during a Joint Sitting because he thought the Prime Minister was acting unconstitutionally and illegally and he said that those were the only reasons one could advance for refusing leave to introduce, namely, if you thought the Government was acting unconstitutionally and illegally. I want to know this from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition: Does he contend that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is acting unconstitutionally and illegally to-day? If his action is not unconstitutional why does the Leader of the Opposition refuse to grant him leave to introduce? But I continue to quote what my previous Leader said—

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) spent the major part of his speech reading out a speech made by Mr. Strauss in this House on the question as to when a first reading can and cannot be opposed. He drew attention to the contention made by the hon. gentleman that it was only when the measure which was sought to be introduced was either unconstitutional or unlawful. Sir, with the greatest respect to that hon. gentleman, that is obviously stating the principal too narrowly and in fact, Sir, if you had agreed with that contention you would have ruled this whole debate out of order. In any event I would point out to the hon. member for Vereeniging that the circumstances which existed in the debate to which he was referring and the circumstances which exist in this debate are quite different; because in that debate all that was known was the long title of the Bill which was to be introduced, whereas in this debate we know not only the long title but we also know the fundamental principles of the Bill because we know that it is materially the same as the Bill which was introduced last year and which was number 72 last year. In fact I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is the Bill which he proposes to introduce materially the same in principle as the one which was put before the House last year?

Wait till you see it.

The Minister refuses to reply. This is a further reason why we are entitled to assume that it is the same in principle.

The hon. members for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) and Vereeniging both suggested that the only reason why we were opposing the first reading of this Bill was because it was, as they put it, Bantu legislation. Sir, the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) amplified the reasons given by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, but I would like to mention one further reason why we on this side take the strongest objection to this measure, and that is because it is the most inhuman apartheid measure ever to be introduced in this House. There is no doubt that it will seriously affect the good name of South Africa overseas, and for that reason I suggest that there is nothing undemocratic about attempting to prevent the first reading of this Bill and prevent it from being presented to this House at all. The principles of this Bill which, as I have suggested, we know, will give complete autocratic control to the Minister.

Order!

I submit, while I do not wish to deal with them in any detail, that the principles which are known will render the Bantu a rightless community.

Order!

Sir, I must naturally abide by your ruling. That inhibits what I can say, but I think I have made my attitude and the attitude of this side perfectly clear. We do not oppose this simply because it is Bantu legislation but because it is the most inhuman measure to be introduced in this House.

I am sorry that I cannot say much about the speech of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, because you assisted him to resume his seat quickly.

Do you know what the contents of the Bill are?

Yes, I know. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, as an old parliamentarian, ought to know that we do not discuss the principles of a Bill at the First Reading and that no demands are made at that stage either. That brings me immediately to the remark of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) who asked by way of interjection whether we would amend the Bill in such a way that it would be acceptable to them as members of the Opposition. That is a queer question to ask. Is the implication of that question that the Opposition must always sit on the Opposition side and that the Government on this side should make laws that comply with the wishes of the Opposition? We remain in power but we must make laws that satisfy them! Must we make such a spectacle of Parliament? But apart from that ridiculous situation implied by the hon. member’s question I want to know from him and from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition whether we must now take it that in future the Opposition would like to know everything about the principle of a Bill in advance, otherwise they will not consider it? Because that is what is at issue at the moment as the Opposition has stated their case. I think it is a ridiculous situation, to put it that way. That was also the trend of the speech of the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Hourquebie) in regard to the principles, as he called it, of the Bill. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said in parenthesis that the Bill contained three main principles. I want to tell him that this Bill deals with some eleven Acts and that many more than three principles are involved and two of the three mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition are not even principles of this Bill.

Are you going to change it?

I am coming to the changes. The hon. member for Musgrave tried to sweep aside the judgment given by the previous Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Strauss) to which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has referred, by saying that Mr. Strauss did not know at the time what the contents of the Bill under discussion were. That is precisely not the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter was—and the hon. member can look it up in the minutes of the Joint Sitting—that that question concerned a motion to validate an old Act, which had been declared invalid, in connection with the separate representation of voters. In other words, the Joint Sitting was aware of all the details of the matter under discussion. That was stated clearly and the then Leader of the Opposition knew it. While we are on the subject of the Joint Sitting, let us for a moment see what happened there. During that same Sitting Mr. Strauss criticized the attitude of the Labour Party of the day. The Labour Party had refused leave to introduce a Bill and Mr. Strauss advanced the principle of audi alteram partem as one of his main arguments why leave to introduce should be granted. The Government members, of course, voted for the motion, that leave to introduce should be granted and members of the Opposition voted with it, including the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) who interjected a moment ago. The present Minister of Information was then a member of the Opposition and he voted for it, and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) also voted for it. Here you have it in column 34, Sir. The hon. member for Houghton was not even as liberal in 1954 as the Labour Party of the day was.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, times do change. The hon. member for Houghton does not want to know anything about this Bill because she is not in the least bit interested in improvements in connection with matters of this nature. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition asked me a moment ago what changes were being made. I want to say this in that connection: We have always stated in our Press reports that the Bill provided for changes, deletions and amendments. Why did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Parktown, who is so concerned about amendments in their favour, not cherish the hope that we might perhaps effect changes that they would welcome? The hon. the Leader of the Opposition really has a very weak case. We know the House has the opportunity at the Second Reading of a Bill and at the Committee Stage to deal with the principle of a Bill. Are the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party really so lacking in self-confidence that they do not think that they may perhaps persuade us to amend undesirable aspects of the Bill if there are any? I am afraid. Sir, that after the experience they have had of themselves, they do indeed suffer from that lack of self-confidence.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to call upon somebody who is at present sitting in the front benches of the Opposition to assist us, namely, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in connection with a matter which is in principle absolutely in line with the leave we are seeking to-day. On 14 June 1963 when the hon. the Minister of Justice had to pilot the Liquor Bill through its Committee Stage, the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) moved a motion to the effect that a principle which had already been approved at the Second Reading should be revised. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) opposed it. The hon. member for Germiston (District) got to his feet a few minutes later and said the following—

That is the member for Stellenbosch—

We too are now asking that the merits of the case should be discussed later on, at the various stages. I call upon the hon. member for Germiston (District) please to ask his Leader, as happened last year, to display the necessary knowledge of the procedure and to withdraw his motion as the hon. member for Durban (Point) changed his stand last year. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite are not prepared to follow the old well-tried procedure and to discuss the matter at the right stages because they cannot face up to the facts; they do not want to enter those stages because they know they will not have a case to state there.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—74: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Diederichs, N.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jurgens, J. C.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.: Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Webster, A.

Tellers: W. H. Faurie and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—42: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff. de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: N. G. Eaton and A. Hopewell.

Motion according agreed to.

Bantu Laws Amendment Bill read a First Time.

There is one point which I think the hon. the Minister should clear up in connection with the inclusion of agricultural workers under the provisions of this Act. I refer to the statement which he made to the effect that the contribution rate by employers of agricultural workers would remain the same as it was to-day. Then we had the apparent contradiction where he said there would be differential rates in respect of agricultural workers. I took that to mean that until such time as the differential rates had been worked out the existing rates would apply but I have since been informed that that may not be the position. I think we ought to have some clarity on this point.

I interpret what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has said to mean that he objects to the different tariffs that may possibly be applied. He also asked for more information. I want to draw the attention of this Committee to the fact, however, that there are various kind of workers in agriculture, workers who run various kinds of risks. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana ought to know that the employees of the crop farmer who uses many tractors, threshing machines and combines, run a far greater risk than, for example, the employees of a sheep farmer who only farms with sheep. The employees of a sheep farmer, in turn, are subject to fewer risks than the employees of a farmer who is, for example, getting bulls ready for a show. If the farmer is preparing a Jersey bull for a show his employees are exposed to greater dangers than the workers of a farmer who is preparing an Africander bull, because that small little Jersey bull is much more vicious than the Africander bull. That means that you have to do with various kinds of risks in agriculture. That being the case, because the one risk is greater than the other, I think it is only fair and reasonable that there should be various tariffs; that the agricultural farmers should be divided into various groups. I do not think we can lay down in the law who exactly will comprise these groups and what the tariffs will be. I think the hon. the Minister can work that out actuarially after he has determined how great the various risks are. …

Order! This clause only defines a worker for the purposes of the Act. It does not refer to tariffs or anything of that nature at all.

Then I come to the worker, Sir. We have to deal with various workers. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana wants to know whether the same tariff will apply to the various workers. The one worker runs a far greater risk than the other…

Order! The clause has nothing to do with tariffs.

I want to make the position quite clear. I have not suggested that I was opposed to differentiation as far as the tariff rates were concerned. I merely asked for clarification as to what the position was going to be and not for details in connection with the various classifications. I think it is just as well that that point is cleared up right away.

In reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), what I tried to indicate was that as far as those farmers were concerned who were registered their tariff would remain at R1.50. When they have all come in and we have gained the necessary experience the Commissioner will be able to determine what diminution there should be, if any. What I tried to indicate was that the existing tariff of R1.50 would continue in the meantime.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister once again to this clause under which the agricultural workers will be brought in and the importance of providing first aid, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) pointed out yesterday, and suitable appliances and services for first aid in respect of agricultural workers. Such first aid will be vastly different from the first aid that is usually provided in a factory, for instance, where the Workmen’s Compensation Act comes mostly in operation. Agricultural workers vary of course from one part of the country to another part. In such areas as Zululand and the coastal areas of Natal, and perhaps other parts, provision will have to be for taking care of snake bites and tick-borne fever, all of which must now become diseases under this Act because they are peculiarly related to the man’s work. Similarly the agricultural labourer is particularly susceptible to tetanus and in some areas—again the Natal and Zululand areas—to rabies. In other areas we are faced with the problem of pesticides. I know there are in the schedule diseases due to hydrocarbons but there are other pesticides …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the classes of workers.

But these are particular classes of workers, Sir.

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

But these individuals are peculiarly susceptible to these diseases …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, are we not allowed to discuss the category of workers who are now going to fall under the provisions of this Act? Those workers represent a class of worker exposed to danger as the result of the use of various insecticides, etc. … It is the worker who will now be brought into the ambit of the Act and we are now discussing what that will mean in relation to Clause 1. Clause 1 is the clause which is bringing the agricultural worker under the Act itself.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) may continue.

Some of these agricultural workers will be sprayers and this will bring them into contact with the pesticides they will be handling. I must draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the antidotes for every pesticide must be part of the first-aid kit provided under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Furthermore the pesticides carry a danger from contact and from breathing and it is for the Minister to lay down special conditions, such as what these men must wear to protect themselves. I think he is opening a door here, with these agricultural labourers, much bigger than he realizes. He thinks it is going to be cheap. But I am sure it is not going to be cheap. He is not going to save any money on it as he thought he would. For the first time the agricultural labourer will now be cared for by the State. Up to now he was left to the mercy of his employer. The Minister is laying a duty upon himself to care for these people. I think he should realize what he is doing. He has a duty to see to it that suitable first-aid equipment is provided under his own Act; suitable services must be available for these people. He has all the earth and manure germs to contend with, all the pesticide poisoning which is now ignored, and other diseases such as tetanus, etc., which he will have to check.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. Amongst those farm labourers who now fall within the ambit of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there are a great many who only work for six months in the year in terms of the Masters and Servants Act. As the hon. the Minister knows that is the position in practically the whole of Natal and in a large portion of Transvaal. I have no knowledge of the other provinces. In the case where the farmer employs migrant labourers how will that registration take place, because in terms of the Masters and Servants Act they are compelled to work six months every year. They do not all commence duty at the same time, however. You therefore find that a farmer employs different labourers every month of the year. Could the hon. the Minister perhaps explain that?

In reply to the hon. member who has just sat down I may tell her that I have indeed given attention to that matter. The workers to whom she has referred are covered under the amendment we are effecting.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) has raised the question of additional first aid which will have to be supplied in regard to farm workers because they will be more liable to certain dangers in the course of their work. Of course, Mr. Chairman, we shall give attention to that. I think it is obvious that first aid will have to be supplied commensurate with the new dangers. I can give the hon. member the assurance that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner will give his attention to this matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I have difficulty in presenting a thought which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister because it is possible that you, Sir, may rule it out of order as being against the principle of the Bill which has already been agreed to. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the procedure which is suggested for Bantu labour in trade and industry and commerce throughout the country is correct. But a new class of labour is now brought in, in the form of Bantu farm labour. The point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister is this, that in relieving the Bantu of the necessity to follow the procedure as set out in the law, he has forgotten the large field of agricultural labour which is on the same basis as the Bantu, namely Coloured labour, the illiterate, “die ongeleerde mense”. It is here that I find I may come into difficulty with you, Sir. But I shall be glad if the Minister would give some thought to that.

Order! The hon. member is now out of order.

The hon. Minister in reply to a question of mine stated that almost R800,000 was owing to White and non-White workers, moneys which had not been claimed, and in his second-reading speech he said that this clause here would to some extent help these people to get the money that is owing to them. I don’t think that that is sufficient, and I want to put the following suggestions to the hon. Minister, that in future, especially when it comes to farm labour, when they have treatment, it must not be considered as sufficient to put the address of the labourer down on the form as the address of the work-giver. The address that should be put down is the address of the worker where he is going to for any convalescent period. Mr. Chairman, when serious injuries take place, the injured person invariably leaves hospital and then goes home to recuperate. It is there that the worker is lost as far as his compensation is concerned. It happens from the time that he leaves the hospital until he goes to his own home, possibly in one of the reserves, and there he is lost. I think it is essential especially in the case of the Native workers that every Bantu worker who leaves the hospital should give a forwarding address where he is going to, and in most cases it would be his own tribal home. It may be of course that he is an urbanized Bantu, and again he will not go to his place of work but he will go to his living quarters in some hostel or some Bantu area in which he is living, and I think that is the address that he must give. What has been happening in the past is that the worker gives as his address the address of his employer, and very often he does not go back to work, and the employer of that man very rarely takes it upon himself to trace the Bantu who has been injured, and the Native is lost, and the Minister finds it impossible to trace him. So I suggest firstly that a forwarding address must be given and it must be a home address either in an urban area or in the reserves. Secondly, I would suggest to the hon. Minister that instead of only publishing the names of individuals to whom money is owing, the name and address should be put in the Government Gazette and these sheets, these lists of names should be posted outside police stations, especially in reserves and urban areas where there are police stations in Bantu areas. At every police post in those areas there should be a list of names with addresses indicating that so much money is due to the workers mentioned and that they can make application through the police station or through the Commissioner. I think that is the way to trace them and that is the only way I think the Minister will be able to find the people to whom all this money is owing.

I am grateful to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) for the suggestions which he has made and I will undertake to see that those suggestions are conveyed to the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. As the hon. member realizes it is a great difficulty—this question of unclaimed moneys. I believe that the Commissioner has done everything in his power to trace these unknown people, and, as the hon. member noticed in the reply I gave to him last week almost R1,000,000 is standing in that fund as unclaimed. It is quite a serious position really, and I personally was quite surprised to see how big that amount was. But I can give the hon. member the assurance this his remarks will be brought to the notice of the Commissioner and we shall see whether it is practicable to carry out some of the suggestions which he has made.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he would be prepared to take out the word “scheduled” in line 55. This part of the clause will then read—

I bring this forward in the same way as I spoke yesterday on the question of the difficulty of identifying diseases which are due to the man’s occupation under the present circumstances. We have here an example of diseases which may even be fatal to farm-labourers. I do not think the Commissioner would do so in practice, but if he should wish to dispute a case where a man develops tetanus and dies, or dies from a snake-bite, the position would be that the disease is not scheduled. As I have said before there are many other diseases which have not as yet been isolated or even recognized as being due to the nature of the person’s occupation and therefore they do not appear in the schedule, and until such time as we can convince the Minister or he can convince himself of the necessity for a serious investigation of diseases among workers which are due to their occupation but which for one reason or another have not been placed on the schedule, I hope he will be satisfied with this suggestion of mine to take out the word “scheduled” and rely on the discretion of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation to use his judgment on the question whether or not it is due to the nature of his occupation.

I regret that I cannot accept the suggestion of the hon. member. If that word “scheduled” were omitted, it would truncate the whole clause. If the hon. member will refer to the side-note to the clause, he will see that it reads “compensation in respect of scheduled industrial diseases”. In other words, before a workman can claim compensation for a disease, it has to be a scheduled disease which he has been subjected to in the occupation which he pursued. It seems to me that if you are going to take this word “scheduled” out of the clause, it would defeat the whole object of giving compensation only in respect of a disease which is contracted in that particular occupation. The hon. member mentioned a case of death by snake-bite or poisoning. Well, that is a risk which a workman runs in his occupation, and if he is killed his dependants are entitled to the compensation which is payable to them, but it cannot be a disease. A disease is something which continues. A disease may not kill a man and it may go on for many years, and if it is a scheduled disease, a disease which the Commissioner considers to be a scheduled disease to which the workman was subjected in that particular occupation, he gets compensation. There may be other diseases a workman may suffer from, but if they are not scheduled diseases he does not get compensation. I say that for me to accept the suggestion that “scheduled” should be omitted, would simply destroy the whole effect of this clause.

I want to say to the hon. member, however, that the Commissioner will be asked to go into the questions which he raised at the second reading yesterday and he may consider having an investigation to see whether there are any other industrial diseases that should be added to the schedule. It is for him to decide whether he will have a full investigation and if he decides there are such diseases, then I have no doubt the necessary recommendation will be made and they will be proclaimed in due course.

The problem that we are faced with here I agree is not easy to overcome. I think I can best illustrate the position by reminding the hon. Minister of what happened prior to asbestosis being a scheduled disease. There were those who were suffering as a result of working with asbestos and they could not get compensation because asbestosis had not been scheduled as a disease. The only way to overcome it was (in this one instance that I have in mind) to petition the Select Committee on Pensions and the one particular case I have in mind was met in that way. Now it does seem to me that during this period of time when inquiries will be undertaken by the Commissioner, there are going to be cases that are going to cause anxiety in that they will not be scheduled diseases. Take the effect of say a snake-bite which might bring about paralysis, possibly of long duration. Under those conditions the benefits will not apply because it is not a scheduled disease as yet. The plea I want to make to the hon. Minister is that from the day that this particular Bill and this particular amendment becomes operative, the benefits should be payable in those circumstances. If there is any disease added to the schedule, it should be operative from the date on which this Bill comes into operation. The hon. Minister will see the point. As a result of these new hazards which are going to come about as a result of agricultural workers being classified as workmen for the purposes of this Act, certain people will be benefited, and it seems only fair to me that if any scheduled diseases are added to the list we already have, then in their case the benefits should apply as from the date of the promulgation of this Bill.

That would only apply to agricultural labourers.

Yes, if it is the type of disease agricultural workers are going to fall prone to.

Because they are now being brought in.

Yes.

I will consider that matter when the time comes.

It seems to me that the hon. Minister is somewhat inconsistent. He says for instance that if a man dies from tetanus, his widow or dependants will receive compensation. But all people do not die from tetanus. Under modern treatment quite a number of these people survive, but they survive perhaps with seriously damaged limbs from the fits that have broken their bones. Similarly, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has said, it is not unusual for a person bitten by a snake to lose a limb. The point is that here are diseases which are peculiar to the particular work of the man, but because of the legal construction placed on the schedule, the whole schedule being grossly out of date, apparently a man’s estate will be paid if he dies, but if he survives and is crippled there will be no compensation for him. I am quite certain that the hon. Minister does not mean this to happen, but that is what his words imply. If the hon. Minister will only consider that there are diseases, especially in farming, which are peculiar to farming but which are not mentioned in the schedule, he will see my point. Furthermore, even in his own schedule he talks there of silicosis being due to exposure to silicon dioxide. There are other forms of pneumoconiosis, as I mentioned yesterday, such as those occurring amongst workers in sugar mills, and there are various other fibres which are being found in lungs which come under the term “pneumoconiosis” Why must they necessarily be confined to the dust of silica? All these are problems which the hon. the Minister’s Department should investigate very seriously, and it should be done at once, because in the meantime injustices are being done to men.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned last night I was quoting statistics which proved that during the three years the Department of Bantu Education had controlled this section of education it had achieved more than all the previous bodies had during the preceding 33 years. That also proves to me that the Bantu is also far better off in this respect under his own Department of Education. Since 1953, when this Department took over education, phenomenal progress has been made as far as ordinary education, the number of schools, the number of pupils, the number of teachers, and last but not least the standard of education are concerned. I assume that in this case too, in respect of this class of education, we shall find the same. I also referred appreciatively to the role the Churches had played in respect of special education. It has been mainly due to the initiative displayed by Church bodies that that progress has been possible. The ten schools for the deaf and the blind are all State-aided schools. There are no State schools at the moment. I like the present pattern of subsidized institutions under Church control. If I understood the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) correctly, he agrees with me and I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to develop along this pattern rather than to establish State schools.

The position is unfortunately that there is no economic pressure for the promotion of special education for the simple reason that it is an expensive type of education which, economically speaking, pays no dividends. It is estimated that it costs approximately four and a half times as much to educate this type of child than the child in an ordinary school, that is, the normal child. That is the ratio as far as the education of the White child is concerned and I reckon it will not be different in the case of the Bantu child’s education. That is why the Department of Bantu Administration and Development will also have to be willing to put its hand fairly deeply into its pocket in order to subsidize these schools.

The education of the physically handicapped child is par excellence a service of mercy and in this regard both churches and welfare organizations can play a very important role. If you want proof of that, Sir, you only have to pay a visit to Worcester, for example. That institution started in a small way in 1881 and it has since then developed. They convinced one Government after the other of their usefulness and in that way they obtained subsidies and to-day that institution is one of the most modern in the world. They have proved that in the case of the deaf and the blind that handicap can to a great extent be overcome, and not only that, but that you can turn him into a useful citizen who is of value to society and to our economic life. That valuable experience will also now be at the disposal of the Bantu.

As the hon. the Minister has explained, in spite of the title of this Bill, it only provides the education of the deaf and the blind and other physically handicapped children. Those are only three of the so-called handicapped children who require special education. The other two are the mentally retarded—I call them that because I do not approve of the appellation of “mentally deficient” in their case. The others are the deviates. Provision is made for the mentally retarded in the ordinary schools by way of special classes. A mentally retarded child is in no sense a deviate child. “Deviate” is a completely misleading term. A mentally retarded child is simply a child who is a little more stupid than his classmates who can boast of a higher intelligence quotient. In many cases they are much more normal and well balanced than their so-called normal schoolmates. That is why the term “special education” is misleading in their case. What they ought to have is ordinary education which is adapted to their particular needs. Call it “adapted education” if you will, Sir. It would also be wrong to put them separately in a separate school. Even the separate special classes constitute a danger because those children find it very difficult at a later stage to fit themselves into ordinary society because they are inclined to develop an inferiority complex. It is also stupid to think that this group can develop into tsotsis. The tsotsi, or whatever you want to call him, is a deviate, he is a sick person, mentally sick, he is not necessarily stupid; he is more often very intelligent; they belong to the two groups who are not included in this legislation, the deviate group. Although they do constitute material for special education. To be quite honest, Sir, they constitute the greatest problem in our whole system of education. In order to rehabilitate them you require the services of psychologists and psychiatrists. That is why one is not so very happy that they should fall under the care of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development instead of under the Department of Bantu Education. There are good reasons for that, however; firstly, financial reasons; there is also a chance for them to be trained while in service and to be placed in employment, but the rehabilitation of these people is not merely a question of training them and placing them in employment, Sir, it is also a question of reclamation, spiritual reclamation.

As far as the training and the care of physically handicapped children are concerned, for which this Bill makes provision, the hon. the Minister is not asking for greater powers. He has already been in charge of this section for a few years, since 1961. He was already given all the powers he required in the Act of 1948. There is nothing contentious in this Bill and the best proof of that, Sir, is probably the silence of the Opposition on this matter. It contains certain amendments and additions to and deletions from the 1948 Act which have become necessary but if there are any objections they can be ironed out in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) made a few remarks in his second reading speech yesterday to which I would like to refer. The hon. member referred to Clause 12 (1) (a) which deals with the liability of parents for certain moneys and costs at special Government Bantu schools, and he said that the prescribed tariffs should not be recovered from the parents. I should like to refer the hon. member to the definitions clause, Clause 1, paragraph (xiv) which makes a number of concessions in connection with pupils receiving special education. This paragraph reads as follows—

It goes even further. If the hon. member had read the clause from which he quoted a little further, that is to say, sub-section (2) of the clause that he quoted yesterday, Clause 12, he would have realized that further important concessions were being made—that the Minister can grant exemption from the payment of the fee so determined in respect of any child or any class of children. I think this is an important concession and I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to comply with the request of the hon. member for Kensington. What the hon. member has asked for amounts to this that everything should be done completely free of charge and I think that would be a mistake. The hon. member will agree that “education” does not only mean instruction but also education in the broad sense. I am sure he will agree that the child must be taught not simply to be dependent upon the State for everything that it receives and not to develop the mentality of always wanting everything for nothing. Perhaps this idea of getting everything for nothing in education has also already gone too far as far as the Whites are concerned. It is entirely wrong. Even this kind of Bantu child whom we are now discussing must be proud of being able to look after himself once he has grown up. He must enter life without his disability being so noticeable and without being hampered by it. No matter whether he is blind or deaf, he wants to be treated like a normal person. He also develops a sense of pride and that is why we want to emphasize the fact that education should not be made more concessive than it already is. There are many people who do not like their disability to be noticed in public by others. I think for example of the case of the person who had children at my school, a blind person who earned very little. He had four children at school but he never asked for exemption from the school fees. He was too proud to do so. He was exempted but he never asked for it and that is the thought that I want to leave with hon. members that that type of person should not always be treated in such a way that he feels that he is inferior because of his disability.

The hon. member also referred to this matter in his speech yesterday and asked whether this work should not actually be done by the Department of Social Welfare. I want to say that the Department of Social Welfare was not set up to provide education services. It has another purpose. The hon. member knows that he is trying to give birth to an idea which is beyond the comprehension of all of us. Education is a function that must be undertaken by the Department of Education; that is its special task and the whole set-up of the education organization is such that it is able to implement that task through the medium of trained people in the best way. I think that we all differ very strongly from the hon. member in this regard.

The hon. member also asked that the control of these schools should not be taken out of the hands of the various churches and missionary bodies because he said that this was a service that was performed to a great extent by the churches and that they wanted to retain that control. My reply is that as far as the removal of the control over those schools is concerned the hon. member apparently did not listen too well to what the hon. the Minister had to say. The hon. the Minister stated quite clearly that active White leadership in the control of these schools was necessary and would remain necessary for some time yet. It is not the intention to take away the control over those schools from those bodies without consulting them. He asked whether those bodies had been consulted in regard to the framing of this Bill. I do not think that that question is relevant. The hon. the Minister has emphasized the fact that this Bill contains no new principles and that it is in no way aimed at changing the organization of special Bantu education and the basis on which it rests and establishing a new pattern for it.

In connection with State-aided schools, as they now exist, the position will remain unchanged after the passing of this Bill. That is why I want to ask: Why the churches should have been consulted in this regard?

Broadly speaking, the functions of the Department of Bantu Education to my mind are as follows; Firstly, the planning of education; secondly, the provision of education facilities and thirdly, the control of Bantu education services generally. Educational planning embraces the planning of an education policy. Furthermore, it embraces the purpose that is to be achieved and also the manner in which that purpose is to be achieved; in other words, the means to be used. Furthermore, the additional services that have to be performed must be planned. We can rest assured that the Department of Bantu Education will also use its knowledge and experience in connection with planning to the benefit of the planning of this type of education. The whole organization and operation of special education for handicapped Bantu children was still only in its initial stages when this Department took it over from the Department of Education, Arts and Science. This Department built on the foundation which had been laid, and here I want to refer to four State-aided special Bantu schools that were taken over. There is the School for the Blind at Pietersburg, the School for the Deaf at Rustenburg, the School for the Blind near Middelburg and the School for the Deaf and Blind near Umtata. The staff of the Department of Bantu Education immediately set about providing proper and adequate education facilities. A very good memorandum was also drawn up in connection with the education of Bantu deaf, and this served as a basis at the various institutions. This education consists of the setting up of means of contact with the Bantu community. The most important of these are reading, writing, lip-reading, sign-language and a certain amount of speech-training so that later on the deaf person can more easily be absorbed into his community and so that he can also learn good social, hygienic and moral habits. Furthermore, training is given in arithmetic, physical training and Bible History. Of particular importance is the training in manual labour that has been given over the past two years. The Bantu lad is trained in horticulture, agriculture, woodwork and masonry. The Bantu girl is taught weaving, needlework and domestic science. After the completion of the course the names of these persons are handed over to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development because that Department has the machinery for placing these people in employment. In this respect we have very sound and harmonious co-operation between the two Departments. This indicates the enthusiasm and conviction with which the Department of Bantu Education has taken upon itself the task of training these handicapped children. It proves conclusively that the training of the handicapped Bantu child is planned in such a way that it prepares him for his absorption into the Bantu community in which, firstly, he must find his own niche, but secondly, where he can also perform a service. He is a member of the community and he must be absorbed productively in that community.

I also want to discuss the principle of giving Bantu parents a say in school matters, a point that has also been emphasized here. These school bodies on which the Bantu parents can serve will provide them invaluable experience when they have to administer their own affairs at a later stage. The Bantu community as such must be trained and helped and encouraged gradually to have a greater share in this sort of education until they are able at a later stage to bear the same responsibility as they already bear in regard to normal Bantu education. I also want to emphasize the fact that these State-aided schools have control bodies which take the initiative and frame their constitutions to fit in with their circumstances. The Minister can also nominate representatives but they usually number one less than half of the total so that the control is always in the hands of the parents. A special inspector organizes the educational services of these schools. I come now to the question of subsidies and I want to mention the subsidies that are already being granted at the moment in respect of these Bantu children. In the first place, the salaries and allowances of the teachers are paid; secondly, two-thirds of the salaries and allowances of other approved staff at the schools is also paid; thirdly, two-thirds of the expenditure in connection with the erection and maintenance of the buildings is paid; half the cost of other approved expenditure is paid, and for the rest two-thirds of the cost of furniture, vehicles and other equipment are paid. I want to emphasize this fact so that the hon. member for Kensington will know what is already being done. The maintenance allowance per Bantu pupil is R54 per annum for every handicapped child. I want to say too that this expenditure is paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

In conclusion I just want to say that one can only thank the Department of Bantu Education very heartily indeed and congratulate it on the progress that it has already made in regard to this education. We believe that the Bantu concerned welcome it and appreciate it most sincerely.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill deals with special Bantu education. It follows the pattern and the guiding principles which were clearly laid down by the present Prime Minister in a statement which he made in the Other Place on 7 June 1954 in his then capacity as Minister of Native Affairs. He gave a short summary of the shortcomings of the old set-up and also indicated the guiding principles for the future. I should like to quote this summary given by the Prime Minister so as to have it on record that that is the direction and that we are still moving in precisely the same direction. The Prime Minister put it as follows (col. 2598)—

1. (a) under the system of mission school education, the schools (1) could not serve the community and could not make use of the community and (2) they were strangers to the national policy.
2. (b) control by the Provincial Administrations was detrimental because it could not co-ordinate the school with other development services; it could bring no uniformity into the service in accordance with the policy of the country, and the provinces had no direct financial interest in this service;
3. (c) a sound pedagogic attitude was sacrificed when there was a deviation from the principle which was laid down in establishing the Native Development Account under which a direct contribution was demanded from the Natives to be able to earn a subsidy from the State;
4. (d) the curriculum (to a certain extent) and the teaching methods, by ignoring the segregation or apartheid policy, could not offer preparation for service within the Bantu community. By simply blindly producing pupils who were trained in European ideas the idle hope was created that they could occupy positions in the European community in spite of the National policy referred to. This is what is meant by the unhealthy creation of white-collar ideals and the creation of wide-spread frustration among the so-called educated Natives.

That was how the Prime Minister summed up the objections: The following four principles were laid down as the guiding principles in bringing about a reform, and those are the principles which are still being observed in this whole matter. The four principles are the following (col. 2599)—

1. (1) The control of the education system is taken out of the hands of the provinces and placed in the hands of the Department of Native Affairs so that a uniform education policy in accordance with the broad policy of the country can be introduced so that education can be co-ordinated with other services and so that the co-operation of the Bantu can be organized.
2. (2) The local control of the schools under the supervision of the State is entrusted to Bantu bodies which must now learn to perform a service for the community as a whole, a service which was performed by the mission churches for a section of the community. The mission school is replaced by the community school.
3. (3) The control of schools which do not serve local communities but whole areas, i.e. institutions for advanced education and especially for the training of teachers, must be controlled by the Department itself.
4. (4) A financial policy must be followed such as has already been announced in the Budget speech. In this way it will be arranged that the Bantu themselves will carry an increasing amount of the cost of expanding their education services. The principle of a Native Development Account is re-established in practice by the creation of a Bantu Education Account.

These four points were emphasized by the Prime Minister as the direction to be followed. This Bill is a further step in the same direction and I shall try to prove in a moment by reference to the clauses that that is so and that this is an essential Bill.

Since 1953 when Bantu Education was taken over by the Department of Bantu Education there has been a phenomenal growth both in numbers and as far as achievements are concerned. It is estimated that at the moment, out of a possible 2,500,000 children between seven and 14 who can attend school, 1,680,000 are in fact at school on a full-time basis, or 68 per cent. If one adds the Bantu pupils who are receiving part-time education, this percentage is increased to 80 per cent or even 83 per cent. If in addition to that one takes into account the fact that between 10 per cent and 15 per cent are generally regarded as educable, then this percentage is not only very high indeed in comparison with many other countries but is definitely outstanding in comparison with the rest of Africa.

This legislation has produced another excellent result. As a result of the amendment of the Act more Bantu are now interested in education and in the school boards and school committees. The direct result of this is that we have now drawn into the sphere of education 4,000 Bantu who are members of school boards and 40.000 Bantu parents who are members of school committees. This gives those people an opportunity to take an interest in their education and in the progress of the child, and at the same time it gives them a good school where they can be trained to assume responsibilities later on in their own area.

But the reports too speak volumes, and the figures which I propose to mention here are very interesting. In 1953, when this Department took over, 6,763 candidates entered for the Junior Certificate, of whom 3,236 passed, that is to say, 47.8 per cent. Two hundred and eighteen passed in the first class, or 3.23 per cent. Then I want to quote another figure in respect of the year 1957, which is the middle of this period, to indicate the gradual growth which has taken place. In 1957 there were 7,817 candidates, of whom 4,085 passed, or 52 per cent, 151 passed in the first class, or 3.78 per cent. But in the meantime the pupils who attended school under this improved system progressed until they became the Std. 8 pupils. In 1963, to take the latest figure, there were 9,532 candidates, of whom 7,654 passed, or 78 per cent, and 1,084 passed in the first class, or 11.3 per cent, in comparison with 3.2 per cent in 1953. These figures certainly prove that the Bantu have benefited in every respect under this new dispensation.

But I want to come back to the Opposition, and I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is not here, because he is the only member of the Opposition who has spoken so far. That hon. member too has made a complete somersault in connection with this Act. In 1959 there was also a Bill before this House to amend the Bantu Education Act, an Act which was much less contentious than this measure. In the main that Bill amended certain designations. The designation “Secretary of Bantu Education” was substituted for “Secretary of Native Affairs”, etc. But at that stage the Opposition strenuously opposed that Bill. I want to quote what was said by the hon. member for Kensington himself. In the course of that debate he said—

At the moment we are dealing with the fifth amendment of this Act and we find that no hullabaloo is being raised about it.

But there are a few other matters that I want to emphasize. There is the question of the taking over of schools. Clause 7 of this Bill provides that the State may take over certain schools. In other words, here we once again have the principle of the taking over of Bantu education. In 1959 the same term, “take-over”, was like a red rag to the Opposition, but to-day they are tame and they are sick and tired of the struggle. The hon. member for Hillbrow stated the position very clearly in 1959 (Hansard, Vol. 100, Col. 3015)—

They strenuously fought against the taking over of Bantu education, and the hon. member for Kensington adopted the same attitude. Here we are dealing once again with the taking over of Bantu education but hon. members opposite are dead silent; there is no reaction from them; it is as though they can no longer get the old engine going again. I want to come to a third point, the transfer of schools to Bantu authorities, and once again I want to quote what the attitude of the hon. member for Kensington was. In 1959 he stated his attitude perfectly clearly (Hansard, Vol. 100, Col. 3028)—

That was the attitude of the hon. member in 1959. This same Bill which is now being allowed to go through the House with so much goodwill, very clearly provides in Clause 8—

It is precisely the same principle—

It is very clearly the same idea. It can be transferred to a Bantu Authority, but to-day we no longer find that a hullabaloo is raised about it; we no longer hear the argument that laymen will be in control and will have the whole future of the poor teachers in their hands. We now find that there is a brand-new approach. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to go on to point out to you how the United Party have somersaulted in connection with this whole matter, and the next point to which I want to come is the United Party’s attitude in respect of the control which these people have over the teachers as such. In 1959 in the same debate the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) quoted from Section 10bis of the then Act—

And after he had read out the proposed new Section 10bis he enlarged upon the injustice which was being done to the poor Bantu teacher whose promotion and whole future were now being placed in the hands of these people. Clause 18 (2) of the Bill which we now have before us states the position perfectly clearly—

Precisely the same ideas which were so strenuously opposed in 1959—

In this case the institutions which established the schools. The clause goes on to provide—

In other words, it is subject to the approval of the Minister who may delegate any of his powers in that connection to the secretary. I am pointing out that precisely the same ideas which were fought tooth and nail by the Opposition in 1959 and which they opposed for days on end, are now being allowed to go through without any opposition. I want to go further. In that debate the Government members eventually stopped talking.

Order! Has the hon. member not made that point already?

No, this is a brand-new point. I say that in that debate the Government members stopped talking because there was nothing left to fight about. And what did hon. members of the Opposition do at that time? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, who the members were who participated in that debate. The following Opposition members spoke: The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), Mrs. Ballinger, Mr. Cope, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and and the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), and this is how the hon. member for Transkeian Territories began his speech—

At that time they objected to the fact that nobody on the Government side was prepared to throw further light on this measure and to defend it. Mr. Speaker, I have now referred to four or five of the contentious principles which were contained in that Act and which are once again contained in this Bill, and to-day we find that Opposition members sit there like little lambs, meek and mild, and silent. What inference must I draw from that? The inference which I should like to draw from it in the first place is that the United Party has changed its policy in respect of Bantu education—and in that case I should like them to admit that they have changed their policy; after all there is nothing strange about changing one’s educational policy. Sir, it is very interesting to see how the United Party changed its policy; in this case it was the hon. member for Hillbrow who made this somersault. I want to illustrate this somersault to you as far as Bantu education is concerned—the same theme that we are discussing here—and I want to quote from Hansard, Vol. 52, Col. 4493. This is what the hon. member or Hillbrow said here on 2 April 1945, in connection with Bantu education—

This was said by the hon. member for Hillbrow in 1945. Now I want to quote to you what the same speaker said in 1959. (Hansard, Vol. 100, Col. 3015)—

This is in direct conflict with what he had said a few years earlier. In other words, the only inference I can draw is that the United Party has entirely changed its policy in this sphere, just as it has done so in many other spheres, and that they are now back again where the hon. member for Hillbrow stood in 1945; that is to say, they are satisfied with the present system; they are satisfied that all Bantu education should fall under the Department of Bantu Education; they have no objection to the fact that all Bantu education should fall under that Department, and that they have therefore accepted the Government’s policy in every respect. That is one possibility. The second possibility is that in the absence of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is the only member on their side who knows anything about education, they have no speaker on education and that they have therefore decided that the hon. member for Kensington should enter the debate in the meantime and that thereafter the debate must simply come to an end because they do not know which way to turn; the hon. member who has to take the lead is absent and the debate must simply come to an end therefore. The third possibility is that the Opposition have been so crippled as a result of the disintegration of their own ranks, as a result of the futility of their struggle against a cause which they realize they are losing more and more, that their teeth have become blunt and that they have lost all fighting spirit.

In the short time which is still at my disposal I should like to put a few matters specifically to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Education to indicate what in my opinion ought to be the direction that we should follow with regard to the curricula and the specific training of the Bantu. I want to start by emphasizing the role which is played by religion in Bantu Education, just as it does in White education, and I want to make it perfectly clear that practically all systems of education in the modern world originated with some religious faith or other. Take the educational system of the Netherlands, for example. I have here a quotation from the book by Professor E. G. Malherbe, “Education in South Africa” in which he says the following—

It is out of those small beginnings, which had a religious origin, that the system of education of the Netherlands has grown to where it stands to-day and has been adapted to meet the needs of the changed circumstances. And when the Cape colony was established in 1852 our Dutch ancestors wanted to transplant their ideal system and put its imprimatur on the new young country in which they had come to settle, with the result that our system of education in South Africa has followed precisely the same pattern as the system of education in the Netherlands. We find that in the Cape too the system of education served the Church only. It was purely theocentric in direction. To illustrate it in a practical way, the curate who at the same time was the teacher held the service on Sundays and on the following Monday he would ask the children at school what they remembered about the previous day’s service, which only goes to show how intimately education and religion were linked up in the initial stages of our system of education. All sorts of departures were introduced later on, of course; the changed circumstances necessitated various departures, but from those small beginnings, where religion provided the original stimulus, our system of education as a whole has grown until it stands where it does to-day. I also want to go back for a moment to the British system of education. In this connection I consulted a book entitled “Education of England” written by Dr. Curtis, professor of education at the University of Leeds. This is what he says about the British system of education—

In British education too therefore we find that the educational system grew out of the Church and out of religion as such. I want to go on now to deal with our South African system of education as we have it at the moment and here I want to put forward a very strong plea that religion should also play its role in the case of the Bantu; that religious concepts should positively be brought home to them and that in this special education that we are discussing here to-day religion should also be emphasized very strongly as a positive contribution to build up the character of those people and to strengthen their character, because to my mind character is the background against which one can build one’s future.

Then I want to come to the question of the specific task of Bantu Education, where the Minister and his Department in my opinion have a very special and specific task to perform. In discussing this matter, I want to say that South Africa is no exception to the rule that education can be used as an instrument to serve a specific purpose. The objectives of various countries are set out in a well-known book, “A Survey of Educational Systems in the World” which is one of the Unesco publications. I do not have the book here but the position of Israel is set out very clearly in this book. It is clearly indicated there that the educational system of Israel is specifically designed to promote and to build up Israeli nationalism as such. Mr. Speaker, in Bantu education, without detracting from it in any way, and also in our White education, also without detracting from it in any way, we have the opportunity to inculcate into people a recognition of our particular racial composition and an intimate knowledge of the problems which flow from that racial composition in this country of ours. Here we have an excellent means, an opportunity, under tranquil circumstances, to bring home to the Whites and the Bantu what their mutual relationship should and can be; what the position can be having regard to the future development of this country; that they can live here side by side as human beings, each preparing himself for his own task in his own community without constantly regarding the other as a threat to himself. That requires an adaptation of curricula—that I accept—but it also means we shall be able to reap the fine fruit that goes with it and that is that we can build up a calm and peaceful society here by bringing home this knowledge to the youth of this country at the stage where they are most receptive. That will require an intimate knowledge of the traditions and the background of each of the constituent elements of the population; it will bring about mutual respect and it will eliminate unnecessary friction, jealousy and suspicion. Here we have a valuable instrument which we can use to eliminate a great deal of misunderstanding, misconceptions and mutual jealousy and friction. Are we using this instrument, or are we allowing these opportunities to pass? I am convinced that in this respect our White education and Bantu education too have a glorious and a great task to fulfil in the interests of South Africa as a whole.

I want to conclude with one final remark and it is this: One feels, in dealing with a matter such as this, in which there is no room for doubt, that one would like to make a positive contribution and not only indicate the direction which education in South Africa should follow but at the same time wish our Bantu education everything of the best for the future. One wants to express the hope that the time will come when our White education will be able to follow the same pattern, in other words that the time will come when we shall have a uniform system and a national education policy.

I rise to speak on this Bantu Special Education Bill in the presence of six ambassadors who have made it their exalted aim to make a note of what is good and to convey these things to an ignorant and disinterested group of people. This Bill contains sufficient material to enable one to discuss it at some length. If we knew how to make the correct use of it, we would not complain that we had too little time to discuss this important matter thoroughly; that is of course to say if hon. members on both sides of the House have made a study of this Bill in the fullest realization of their responsibility as legislators—as is quite obviously the position on this side of the House—particularly in this case where we are called upon to-day and to-morrow to make use of our speech and of our hearing, of our sight and of our minds, to try to assist those who suffer from deficiencies of the senses through the medium of special education; to try to compensate them for what they have been deprived of and to make them worthy people and of service to their own community. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) was so moved in discussing this same subject about which hon. members opposite now remain so silent—yes, so deeply moved—that he spoke in this connection of faith and love, of dedication and devotion. We agreed with him and we thought that hon. members opposite would acclaim what he said. That it concerns the non-White makes no difference; this is part of the task that we have assumed in South Africa; it is a road on which we have set foot and there can be no question of turning back. We have accepted this task.

Mr. Speaker, physically handicapped people are not waste material; they are not something to be thrown away, and this holds good for any national group in the world. The neglect of these people would create interminable economic and social problems in the future and would overwhelm the Departments of Social Welfare and Justice with thorny problems, particularly in a country like South Africa with its unique population problems. This is not simply a negative or unimportant little matter that we can simply overlook, as is apparently being done by the United Party when we consider the interest that has been shown by hon. members opposite. The Department of Bantu Education has a duty and the Department of Bantu Education has showed itself to be fully aware of the duty which rests upon it. That is why this Bill has been introduced. It is clear from the definitions clause that handicapped children are those suffering from deafness and blindness and epilepsy and that these children need special education. By special education we mean education that is adapted to the nature and the requirements of those children. The deviate child is not relevant to this discussion, it is true, but because I wonder whether it will not sooner or later be necessary for the Department to concern itself in this regard, I am sure you will permit me to discuss one or two points in this connection. The deviate child is as yet under the care of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. These are children who are anti-social, and they have to be made socially adaptable; these are children who have degenerated and who must be rehabilitated; these are people who are unsuitable for service and who must be made of service to the community. After they have learnt social habits they become members of the community. After they have become members of the community and after their rehabilitation has been rounded off and they have been uplifted from their degenerate state, and after their ability to serve has been developed and they have been placed in a position where they can be of service, then employment is the next step and this has up to the present been the work of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. I say “up to the present” because I wonder particularly if we reach the stage when Bantu education is taken over completely by the Department of Bantu Education, whether it will not be wise also to place the education of deviate children under the control of the Department of Bantu Education? We must realize why special education as it is set out in this Bill is necessary for the children mentioned in the Bill. I want to say that it is necessary for the one as well as for the other. In both cases the fact remains that they cannot derive sufficient benefit from the normal education that is given to such children in the normal course of education. Both need special education in order to facilitate their absorption into the community to which they belong and in the case of both their attendance at an ordinary class is detrimental both to themselves and to the other pupils.

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone importance in this Bill and in other similar measures that have been passed in the past is the fact that after their training—and this is what I want to emphasize—the children will not have to perform extraordinary services to abnormal communities; they will not have to serve in handicapped communities but will perform normal services in normal communities; they will be normal people in our normal daily life; they will be labourers in the ordinary everyday labour machine and become part of a service to the community and to the nation. If this can be done, then legislation of this nature is of inestimable value and beyond price and to my way of thinking a lack of real enthusiasm and interest in this matter is an unforgivable sin and a heinous crime.

Yes, where are all the other members of the United Party?

This is certainly not a contentious measure and the best proof of this fact is the silence of hon. members on that side. One does not expect a measure of this nature to be a contentious measure; neither should it be such because this Bill is by no means a piece of party propaganda that will be passed by this Parliament on the basis of a political struggle in the face of strong alternative propaganda made by another party. The introduction of this Bill is not even regarded as being a courageous step under delicate and difficult circumstances because it deals with such a normal matter. It is not an attempt at a dramatic show of force on the part of a strong Government; neither is it a reluctant, over-hasty and untimely yielding to pressure from outside or from within. That is why one does not expect strong opposition from one side or a cry of triumph to be raised by the other side as a result of a resounding victory which one political party gains over the other.

But we do expect interest to be shown.

Yes, one does expect interest to be shown. This Bill is an improvement on existing conditions without any drastic changes of principle. It does not rest on a new basis. We have the positive elimination of shortcomings to which the hon. the Minister has referred and which I do not want to discuss further now. But this Bill must also not serve merely as a fleeting attempt to substitute something better for what we already have. No, do hon. members know what it is? It is a solution based on knowledge and on clear aims. These aims are, amongst other things, the eventual transfer of Bantu education to Bantu control. As such, this Bill is an end product of study, of research, of applied educational and scientific knowledge. It is past the stage of a milestone on the road of development; it is an end result.

The hon. the Minister and the draftsmen of this Bill and we on this side of the House do not have the franchise to all wisdom; we have never laid claim to having it. If this were true, an Opposition would be completely unnecessary. One does of course expect vital ideas from the Opposition under the circumstances but these vital ideas should not remain hidden; they should be expressed. These vital ideas should not have appeared in one or the other of the newspapers that are not too favourably disposed towards us either prior to or after the introduction of this Bill. Under these circumstances one expects vital ideas from this Opposition, positive suggestions and expert advice. They have their educationists there and a discussion of these matters could have a very salutary effect; it could bring us as close as possible to a perfect law which would prove the efficiency of the Government and the maturity of the Opposition and that the two joined together, as they ought to be, form a government that is able to deal with the affairs of this country. The Opposition have also had a golden opportunity to earmark themselves as an alternative government by their sensible and judicious participation in this debate but they have not made use of that opportunity.

Order! the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

I thank you for the warning, Mr. Speaker, otherwise I might have strayed even further away from it. I am sure that I am correct in saying that this Bill can be placed upon the Statute Book as an example of the unassailable legislative machine of the Republic made up of a Government party and an Opposition that is wanting at this moment. If we look at Clause 5 of this Bill we see that it deals with the establishment of special private Bantu schools and State-aided special Bantu schools with ample provision for loans and subsidies. This matter has already been discussed by previous speakers and I want to leave it at that. Provision is also being made, if circumstances demand it, for the withdrawal of approval for or the closing of such schools. This is a safety valve which the hon. the Minister has if circumstances develop that make it necessary for a school of this nature to be closed or a concession of this nature to be withdrawn. I want to mention a few examples of the protection that is being given. As far as the withdrawal of the approval for such schools is concerned and the amendment of conditions as far as private special Bantu schools are concerned I should like to quote Clause 3 (2) of the Bill which reads as follows—

1. (a) withdraw or amend any such condition or impose further conditions as he may deem fit;
2. (b) withdraw any such approval if he is of the opinion that any such condition has not been or is not being fulfilled or that other good and sufficient reasons for such withdrawal exist.

Then follows the protection—

There is a second protection provided for in this Bill for these vested interests. Clause 7 deals with the taking over of both State-aided and private special Bantu schools. Clause 7 (a) and (b) reads as follows …

Order! The hon. member can discuss those provisions at the Committee Stage.

I want very much to comply with your request, Mr. Speaker, and I shall be pleased if my few hon. friends on the opposite side will ask their fellow-members to read the Bill so that when we reach the Committee Stage they will know what it is all about.

A further protection that I will not quote, Mr. Speaker, is contained in Clause 6 and refers to the recognition that is given to the existing special Bantu schools and State-aided special Bantu schools. Throughout this Bill one is struck amongst other things by the educational principles of control, training, accommodation, financing, administration, and parental right. We have these things through the medium of the establishment of Bantu control bodies and advisory committees, by inspection, by contributions by parents, by the provision and use of and control over class fees and school funds, loans and subsidies, the appointment of staff and conditions of service. All these things are very clearly set out in Clauses 11 to 20.

I pointed out earlier that we had adequate protective measures in respect of existing vested interests but I just want to say that over and above this we find in Clause 20 the protection of the teacher as an individual as far as his pension rights, his retirement benefits and his leave are concerned. This can be read by any interested person; it is quite clearly set out without there being any possibility of its being misinterpreted. This Bill presupposes that we realize our responsibility. This Bill presupposes that we accept that responsibility. This Bill is the Government’s answer that it does realize its responsibility and has already accepted it. The approach to this question takes many forms. The approach is psychological and educational, practical, economic, and futuristic—futuristic because this Bill aims at eventually making the finished product useful members of the community. This has already been mentioned but the Bill is based on study, on research and experience and on recognized principles, educational principles. It is inspired—and the hon. member for Kensington should be here now so that he could be moved to tears by this truth that he himself stated—by faith and by devotion, by dedication and by a realization of what has to be done. The Government will continue, in respect of this and every piece of legislation that we pass to do what it considers to be its duty, no matter which section of the population may be affected. And in our progress, as also demonstrated in this Bill, we all hope for better days, for a greater understanding, for more appreciation or at any rate, a fair acknowledgment of what is being done. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition should make their contribution to this debate so that they will at a later stage and with every justification be able to participate in the fruits of this Bill.

I wonder whether it is generally realized what took place yesterday and what has taken place to-day in this House? We introduced a Bill yesterday containing many important principles. They were not principles which, in respect of education itself, deviated from the type of education given to handicapped and retarded Bantu children in the past but which, as far as the principle of control was concerned, deviated from what was the case in the past and deviated to such an extent that we could have expected the United Party to have opposed those principles on the basis of their actions in the past. We must remember that a separate Bill was introduced for Bantu education and that they opposed the principle of separate education for the Bantu at that stage, and opposed it strenuously. We introduced a Bill for separate university education for non-Whites and they opposed every stage of that Bill most strongly. We introduced a Bill making provision for separate education for Coloureds and the United Party opposed that strongly too. They adopted the attitude throughout that we ought not to have separate laws and separate control for the education of our various race groups. We are embodying the same principle—a principle which they have considered over the years to be a fundamental principle—in this Bill which will be the Magna Charta of special education for the Bantu in the future, and the United Party have actually supported it! I think that we have reached a very important milestone, Mr. Speaker, in that by our actions in the past we have succeeded in converting the whole of the United Party to our way of thinking; to such an extent that they do not even want to make a contribution to the debate on this important subject! We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing here not only with an amending Bill; it is a Bill which controls the whole question of special education for the Bantu; it is a Bill on its own; it is not merely a question of the amending of a particular matter. Instead of helping” us they have accepted the principles which they opposed so strongly in the past.

I want to refer to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), the hon. member who gave this Bill his blessing in a few choice words. I was pleased that he did so; I was grateful for his remarks. But he was the one who was more strongly opposed than anyone else to the transfer of the control over Bantu education to Bantu bodies.

I am still opposed to it.

But the hon. member is supporting it in this Bill! This is an interesting admission, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member is still opposed to that principle but supports it in this Bill, I should like to know what game the United Party is playing. Is their attitude in this House due to other motives, motives other than the fundamental approach that they have in regard to this matter? Is what I have heard in the lobbies true—that they have been asked not to speak on this Bill so that the Government will find itself in an embarrassing position as far as the Order Paper is concerned? [Interjections.] That is the only conclusion that I can draw. The hon. member says that they are still opposed to the principle to which they have been opposed in the past and yet they support this Bill. The principle to which they have been and still are opposed is the fundamental principles contained in this Bill.

The various points raised by the hon. member for Kensington were completely covered by hon. members on this side of the House who participated in the debate. I want to congratulate hon. members on this side on the valuable contribution that they have made to this debate. They realize that we are dealing here with a Bill which affects the most unfortunate among the unfortunate with their education. They have made a contribution in this regard and have expressed ideas which have been worth listening to in this connection. They are all educationists, men who know what they are talking about, men who have made a positive contribution to the debate. They have replied to virtually all the various questions asked by the hon. member for Kensington but I think that I shall nevertheless deal with a few of these questions briefly myself.

The hon. member for Kensington and other hon. members mentioned the share that the Churches have had up to the present in the provision of special education for the Bantu. I have already stated in my introductory speech but I want to repeat that our intention is not summarily to remove those churches from this sphere. We need them there and we will need them there for some time to come. But we hope that the time will come when the churches controlling these educational institutions will in the first place be Bantu churches so that religion will then also form part of the communal service that they will perform for their own communities. This may perhaps too be one of the reasons why the D.R. Mission church is so particularly interested in this special service, and many of the other churches not. It is because the D.R. Mission church aims at eventually becoming a Bantu church which will fit in with a particular pattern; that it will be a Bantu body, having a religious foundation but forming part of a community to render service to that community.

I admit that I have not consulted the churches about this Bill. I did not do so because it was not necessary. As this Bill stands it neither detracts from nor adds to what they are doing at present. But provision is being made in the Bill whereby the churches will be consulted when we reach the stage when they will be affected—when we reach the stage when that transfer from church control to community control takes place. They can rest assured in that regard. They will be consulted at that stage.

The other matter which the hon. member for Kensington mentioned and to which I want to refer is contained in Clause 19—the conditions of service of people employed at the State-aided special Bantu schools. The hon. member appealed to me to interfere as little as possible in the conditions of service of persons employed by these religious institutions. I want to make it quite clear that it is not my intention to prescribe conditions of service any different to those that they have at present. But it is necessary that we act in a supervisory capacity and that we have uniform conditions of service for the various institutions. Teachers must be able to come and go from one institution to the other without loss of benefits. We must provide for the possibility of a teacher being promoted from one institution to the other—for example, to become the principal of that institution. That is why it is necessary to have a certain uniformity in the conditions of service of the various schools. Although I do not want to interfere in this regard I think it is my duty towards these teachers whose salaries are fully subsidized by the State to prescribe conditions of service for them in consultation, of course, with the institution at which they are employed. But it is not my intention to prescribe conditions of service different to those to which they have become accustomed. That is just about all that the hon. member for Kensington had to say. I want to come now to the interesting contributions made by hon. members on this side of the House.

Another hour and a quarter!

I am very interested to hear that the hon. Chief Whip of the United Party is in such a hurry to get through the work. I wonder what the reason is? Particular questions have been put to me that I must answer. The hon. member can do what he likes; I will reply to the questions put to me. I shall deal with them in detail.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) raised the very important question of whether we should refer to “mentally deficient persons”—this point was raised specifically by the hon. member for Prieska—or whether we should not rather use the term “mentally retarded persons”. I agree with him completely in this regard. That is my personal opinion as well. That is one of the main reasons why the definitions in this Bill are different from the definitions contained in the previous Act. We do not refer in this Bill to “mentally deficient persons” because we feel that provision must be made for mentally retarded children at the normal schools. I may just inform the hon. member that the Division of Psychological Services of my Department has already succeeded, with the assistance of the Bureau of Educational and Social Research, in developing a series of tests, intelligence tests, a system that is being used with particular success in the Bantu schools, to determine whether children are able to progress beyond a certain standard. With the assistance of that Psychological Division so much attention is being given to these mentally retarded children that I do not think it is necessary to make any further provision for them. But I do agree with him that we should refer rather to mentally retarded children than to mentally deficient children.

The hon. member for Prieska and the hon. member for Waterberg referred to deviate children. They expressed concern as to whether it was the correct thing that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development should continue to remain responsible for deviate children. They asked whether we should not make provision for them in this Bill in some or other way, and, if we could not do so, whether we should not cooperate very closely with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development in this regard. In the first place I want to point out that the major problem in connection with deviate children is one we find to-day particularly in the urban Bantu residential areas. We find it there more than anywhere else. In the Bantu areas there is no real problem as far as deviate children are concerned because there they live in their own community; there they remain part of their tribal and family groups. This provides them with the necessary anchors to govern their conduct and make them lead a decent life. But in the urban Bantu residential areas we find that the young people lose these anchors as a result of the breaking up of families that takes place there and as a result of the conditions prevailing in the urban areas. One finds these behavioural abnormalities on the part of the children who have already left school. One does not find them amongst the school-going children to such a large extent. Indeed, very few cases of school-going children showing deviate tendencies have been brought to our notice. This problem arises at the stage when they leave school voluntarily or for other reasons and reach the age where they should no longer receive education as such but should be taught manual labour of some kind and diligence; when they should be taught how to make productive use of their hands and use their ability in their own interests to enable them to make a living, and in the interests of their own community. This can best be done in the Bantu areas where we have various projects controlled by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They can give these young people an active service training so that they in their turn can adapt themselves to and fit in with their communities. So at this stage of the development of the Bantu community the emphasis is being placed on active manual labour for these people; on teaching them how to work and giving them the opportunity to learn to do work which will make them want to work within their communities and preferably in the Bantu areas; so that they can once again develop those anchors which they lost in the urban Bantu areas. The Department of Bantu Administration is able to do this because it has the facilities for doing so. If the Department of Bantu Education has to do it it will mean that we will have to buy farms where these people can be taught to do work of various kinds. But the Department of Bantu Administration and Development has all those facilities at its disposal. It is engaged upon afforestation projects; it is engaged upon farm labour projects; it is engaged upon road building projects; it has various other activities in which these young people can do useful manual labour. Most of them have reached an age where they can do manual labour. That is why I repeat that at this stage the best thing to do is to train these deviate children to be of service to their own communities; to leave this matter to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and not to include it under the Department of Bantu Education.

And so, Mr. Speaker, we have omitted these deviate children from this Bill. Provision is not being made for them in this Bill because ample provision is made for them in terms of the Children’s Act which is administered by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as far as Bantu children are concerned.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the Fuel Research Institute and Coal Act was consolidated last year, but unfortunately in the Afrikaans text a mistake was made in the penal provision, viz. Section 18 (5). Hon. members will see that the word “hoogstens” was omitted in the Afrikaans text. Where it should have been provided that the penalty for a second contravention will in certain cases be “hoogstens (not exceeding) R500” a fine of R500 must now be imposed, as the Afrikaans text reads at present, whereas the intention was that a lesser fine could be imposed in the discretion of the Court, anything up to R500. This Bill only corrects that mistake.

We on this side have no objection to the second reading, Sir, because it only corrects a mistake in the Afrikaans text.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

This Bill does not require much explanation, but I think it is desirable to go back a little into the history of our legislation dealing with weeds so that the objects of the new measure may be stated even more clearly.

As hon. members know, we really have two Acts dealing with the control of weeds. The earlier of these is the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act of 1934, and the later one is the Weeds Act of 1937. Hon. members will also remember that before 1937 the eradication of weeds rested with the Provincial Administration, but that after that time it was transferred to the Department of Agriculture.

We now note that the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act was passed in 1934 already, we realize the very serious light in which the problem of jointed cactus was viewed at that time—in such a serious light that already three years before the Central Government took over the general control of scheduled weeds, it passed a special measure to make it possible to combat jointed cactus with State assistance. That is small wonder, because at one time it was estimated that approximately 1,000,000 morgen of land was infested or threatened by this weed.

The two Acts are similar to each other in many respects, but the Jointed Cactus Eradication Act is much more specific in respect of the eradication of jointed cactus by the State. So, for example, Section 3 provides by implication that the State must eradicate, or have eradicated, jointed cactus discovered on any land. Even though an order is served on an occupant or owner to eradicate jointed cactus in terms of Section 4, there is still the further implication that the Minister will render assistance. As against that, the Weeds Act makes it very clear that State assistance can only be granted if the Minister is convinced that the owner or occupant is unable to eradicate that declared weed. The difference between the two measures is therefore fairly obvious.

You will permit me, Sir, to give a brief review of the whole problem because, in spite of the fact that the State has already been giving active assistance in combating jointed cactus for almost 30 years, this weed to-day is still a real danger to our country and in particular to the Eastern Cape. Unfortunately it is not confined to the Eastern Cape and the adjoining districts, because slight infestations have also occurred in parts of the Northern Cape, the Free State, Transvaal and Natal.

Based on the assumption that, where a part of a farm is infested the whole of the farm must be regarded as being infested, according to a recent survey 484,000 morgen were found to be infested, of which 124,000 morgen can be regarded as being heavily infested, 200,000 morgen as having medium infestation and 160,000 morgen as being slightly infested. That applies only to the Eastern Cape and the adjoining districts. This estimate may perhaps seem high, but we should remember that we are dealing here with a very serious threat. Somebody very correctly called it a “creeping danger” And that is certainly no exaggeration. A slight infestation on one part of a farm may within a very short period spread over the whole farm. The joints of the plant are very loose and easily break off. It can be washed away by water, or can cling to an animal or even to the tyres of a motor-car, so causing a new infestation miles away. And we must remember how innocently this creeping danger entered our country about 100 years ago, namely as an imported ornamental plant which was planted in the garden of the mission station at Hertzog in the district of Stockenstroom.

After the passing of the 1934 Act, to which I have already referred, the Department of Agriculture followed a policy of combating this weed mechanically up to approximately 1938-9, namely by collecting the plants, stacking them and burning them, or by spraying them with arsenic pentoxide. In passing I may say that the latter method was not very successful. In this first phase approximately 161 morgen was cleared by the State. In 1939, as the result of the promising experimental results in regard to cochineal and cactoblastis, it was decided to switch over to biological methods. At first good results were received, but later these insects began to find so many natural enemies that they lost their efficacy.

From 1947 my Department, therefore, had to revert to the mechanical method of combating the weed, but this time without the use of arsenic pentoxide. The mechanical method is an expensive and slow process, but since 1947 386,000 morgen were nevertheless cleaned in that way. Many owners also did not follow up the work done by the State, and therefore their properties quickly became re-infested. It is obvious that the State then had seriously to consider using other means in order to combat the existing as well as new infestations. Fortunately at that time already quite a number of weed-killers, which had been developed by scientists, had become available, and my Department then made extensive experiments with those weed-killers in order to combat jointed cactus and prickly pear.

After these experiments it was decided to issue to the farmers the hormone weed-killer (2, 4, 5-T) because that preparation was found to be effective and the cost was reasonably low. The State’s contribution would be to make available the spray, and the farmer’s contribution would be mainly the transportation and application of it. My predecessor in 1956 met organized agriculture in the Eastern Cape and they reacted favourably to the new scheme. It had the advantage that the eradication could take place at the same time over a much larger area than would have been possible by mechanical means. My Department then established a depot at Fort Beaufort to mix and distribute the spray. In the year 1962-3 alone more than 1,000,000 gallons was issued.

Since 1957 more than 3,000 morgen was sprayed with hormone spray supplied by the State. Since 1934 the State has already spent appreciably more than R3,000,000 on the whole campaign. At present as much as R400,000 per annum is being provided for the spray and still another R100,000 for labour and other expenditure in connection with mechanical eradication. Unfortunately the total quantity of spray issued could not be accepted as the yardstick for the continued and effective combating of this weed, because surveys also revealed that many farmers did not employ additional labour for this purpose; in other words the eradication takes place only when the ordinary farm labourers cannot be kept busy in any other way. Many farmers are still very lax in regard to eradicating this weed.

Another factor which can also be mentioned in connection with this campaign is the fact that the farmers often do not send back the empty containers in which the spray is provided. In the coastal areas, as at Uitenhage and Gamtoos, the spray unfortunately is not as effective, and there the State still has to eradicate jointed cactus by mechanical means. Farmers are, however, themselves expected to do the necessary follow-up work.

I should now like to enlighten the House in respect of the policy which has now been adopted in order much more effectively to combat this threatening danger and to overcome it. An attempt is going to be made to overcome the danger of jointed cactus within the next ten years, and a special effort will be made firstly, completely to eradicate the most distant, thinly spread, surrounding infestations. By means of effective follow-up work it will be ensured that re-growth and re-infestation do not take place.

A programme of action for combating jointed cactus is being planned to comprise the following: Firstly the personnel in the areas heavily infested with jointed cactus will be increased. An attempt will be made, particularly in the Eastern Cape area, to make available one extension officer for every 400 properties on which jointed cactus is being combated, and he will be assisted by one or more weed inspectors.

The extension officer must give the farmers and other landowners guidance and advice concerning the eradication of jointed cactus, and he will further be expected personally to visit those who, for whatever reason, do not make sufficient progress in eradicating the weed and to encourage them or, where necessary, to warn them to take more active steps. The weed inspector must visit all land on which jointed cactus is being eradicated at least three or four times a year in order to carry out a thorough inspection. These officials must give guidance everywhere in connection with the organization and the most beneficial use of work gangs, the use of the spray and the handling of pumps and other implements.

Careful surveys will be made of areas already known to be infested and the tracing of unknown infestation. Every weed inspector serving in the relevant areas will continually have to report on the conditions in his area in regard to jointed cactus infection. Here he will have to work in close contact with soil conservation committees and farmers’ associations.

Farm planning: All farms in the soil conservation districts must be planned, but in the planning of those farms which are infested with jointed cactus a suitable system of camps is a prerequisite which must be given preference. An infested camp should be able to be cleaned within three months, whilst all stock must be removed from such a camp in order to ensure the success of the operation.

Where the State has eradicated jointed cactus mechanically, the owner will be compelled to keep the land clean. Cleaned land must be checked at least once every six months to prevent re-infestation. Regular inspections, which are of primary interest in combating jointed cactus, will be made regularly. Any land-owners who are tardy or unwilling to eradicate jointed cactus will, after the usual warnings, be handed over to the administration of justice for the necessary prosecution. The provisions of the Act will in future be applied more strictly.

The role of soil conservation committees in the eradication of jointed cactus will be extended, in view of the fact that they can be of great value in this campaign in more ways than one. The committees can, for example, render assistance in making propaganda for weed eradication campaigns, in locating and notifying infested areas, etc. The Jointed Cactus and Prickly Pear Advisory Committee will play an important role here. We do not want to treat the farmers harshly, but where we are concerned with such a dangerous weed which spreads so easily, it is in the national interest to take more stringent action, and we shall make an attempt to chase the few unwilling ones back into the kraal.

No undertaking in the interest of a community, whether it be local or of wider scope, can succeed unless the community concerned knows what it wants and how it hopes to attain its object and participates actively in the planning of its programme of action and accepts co-responsibility for its implementation. In the case of jointed cactus more than in any other case, it is a prerequisite for success that everyone should be his brother’s keeper. Therefore local communities and, joining up with each other, the larger communities, will have to organize themselves in communal organizations in which the cooperation of every interested individual is obtained and assistance is given wherever necessary and responsibility is shared for the total eradication of jointed cactus, and re-infestation is prevented in such communal areas. Officials will be available to advise and coordinate the efforts of such a community.

The necessity for combating jointed cactus will be brought home to members of the land service movement by means of lectures, demonstrations and practical locating and combating, which will be arranged for that purpose. The share which the land service movement has in the eradication of jointed cactus will in future be extended and stressed even further.

May I say in passing that the land service movement has existed for many years and is already known to us. It was a movement which flared up and then waned, but about five years ago we gave it new life and reorganized it, and it is gratifying for me to be able to announce to-day that it has been very successful. In the case of such regional organizations success does not depend solely on the guidance given by the head of the Department, but it is ensured particularly by the local leader of such an organization. It is gratifying to be able to say that I cannot think of any other youth movement which enjoys so much support by the general public, by both population and language groups, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, as this movement does. In the peri-urban areas and also in the urban areas it receives great support from all sides. I want to make an appeal in this House to hon. members and to parents outside who are interested in the conservation of our soil and of our scenic beauties and our plants and everything connected with this most valuable possession of ours, to encourage their children to join this youth movement.

Propaganda will be disseminated and eradication techniques will be made available by (a) the launching of campaigns in every area to combat this pest, in accordance with the circumstances prevailing, (b) the dissemination of information about the weed, its spread, the threat constituted by jointed cactus, and as to how this pest can best be eradicated. This information will be more intensively disseminated amongst farmers, the general public and particularly the youth by means of publications, articles in suitable periodicals, lectures to farmers’ associations and schools, radio talks, films, exhibitions, etc. More positive and energetic steps will be taken than in the past in order that this information be brought to the notice of all strata of society. It may be mentioned that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development is combating jointed cactus in an organized manner in the Bantu areas wherever it makes its appearance. Information in regard to jointed cactus will also be disseminated by means of personal visits to farms and also to town and city dwellers who sometimes have jointed cactus plants growing in their rockeries.

Because jointed cactus, through its rapid growth, and astonishing adaptability, constitutes such a threat to the country, a more active and specific research programme in regard to this plant and its eradication is being envisaged. More intensive research will be directed towards—

1. (a) Field Ecology:
   1. (i) ecological studies of the plant’s life history in relation to the great variety of factors in its habitat, and
   2. (ii) investigations of the plant in different environments and its different types;
2. (b) Close studies of the biology and ecology of the relevant insects in various environmental conditions, of parasites or other organisms which may attack these insects, and of the mutual relationship between the insects and the plant host;
3. (c) Mechanical Control: The methods and implements which may be used to collect and to destroy the plants;
4. (d) Chemical Eradication: The effect on the plant of various weedkillers in different concentrations, emulsions and mixtures in a variety of climatic and other conditions. These investigations include the study of the morphology, anatomy and physiology of the plant in so far as it concerns the absorption and internal consumption of the chemicals applied.

I am sure you will allow me, Sir, to say a few words about the prickly pear scourge. It is estimated that 408,000 morgen in the Karoo and the Eastern Cape are infected with prickly pear. Of this, 60,000 morgen are heavily infested, 35,000 morgen are in thickly afforested areas, and 20,000 morgen in inaccessible mountain areas. Prickly pear is a scourge in regard to which we are all very concerned particularly in certain coastal districts where cochineal is not an effective biological measure of control.

Unfortunately the cost of spraying prickly pear with the hormone spray is out of all proportion to the benefits derived, and although in 1957 it was decided to provide spray for this purpose as well, that policy later had to be revised. The costs involved in eradicating prickly pear in certain areas by means of hormone spray amounted to no less than £60 per morgen, and the Department regarded that as being uneconomic and quite out of the question. It was felt that the available funds should be used to combat the more serious problem of jointed cactus. In 1961-2 there were still limited issues to farmers who dug out their prickly pear and stacked it up.

The Department therefore tries to find cheaper methods. One method, the cost of which is within reasonable limits, is to chop down the plants and stack them up with prickly pear forks. These piles are then sprayed thoroughly with 2, 4, 5-T, dissolved in paraffin. Usually there is then very little regrowth. At the moment we are still considering what the State’s future policy will be in respect of providing chemicals for this purpose.

For the control of prickly pear in thickly afforested and inaccessible mountain areas arsenical pentoxide is sold to farmers, but although it is effective it obviously involves certain dangers. The State indemnifies itself against liability for any claims emanating from the use thereof, but nevertheless the dangers remain appreciable.

My Department will continue seeking biological methods of combating the prickly pear pest, particularly in the moist coastal area, in this country as well as with the assistance of overseas scientists. Further observations are planned from Uitenhage. We can only hope that one day we will find an insect which can help us in this.

Now, to come back to the Bill, I have to point out again that unfortunately there are owners and occupiers who think that the assistance of the State in combating these weeds should continue indefinitely and that they, to some extent, can shelter behind the Act dealing with jointed cactus which, as I said before, lays less emphasis on the farmer’s own role and stresses more the State’s obligations. I think the time has now arrived for our legislation to state more clearly that land which has already been cleared by the State should be kept clean.

Hon. members will therefore notice that in this Bill we propose repealing the old Jointed Cactus Eradication Act in toto and that we are now inserting a general provision in the Weeds Act to the effect that where the State has taken all reasonable steps to eradicate a particular weed on any land, the Minister can issue an order instructing all reasonable steps to be taken to keep the land clean of such weeds. Jointed cactus has already been declared a weed in terms of the Weeds Act. Then we are inserting a more severe penalty, namely that after a second or third contravention of this Act, a magistrate may impose a maximum fine of R500, according to the circumstances, instead of the old maximum fine of R100.

In Clause 2 it is now being made a crime if persons use for any other purpose, waste or damage material or apparatus or containers provided at State expense for the eradication of weeds, or use it illegally or do not return the containers or apparatus. I think it is essentail to provide for stricter penalties in this regard.

I do not think it is necessary to give any further explanation in regard to this measure. This Bill has been discussed with the S.A. Agricultural Union, who support it in principle. Hon. members will also be interested to know that my Department has advised its advisory committees, and it enjoys their full support. As far as I know, there is not a single soil conservation committee or district soil conservation committee which is opposed to this measure, and I therefore want to express the hope that everybody in this House will also heartily support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister has given us a fair amount of the history of noxious weeds in this country and I do not propose to follow on the lines he has indicated, but I do want to remind him of what has happened in the past, and that is that this stepchild has been cold-shouldered from time to time to other authorities, and the country has suffered as the result. We well remember when the Central Government handed it over to the Provincial Councils and they, in turn, handed it over to the divisional councils, with the result that the country suffered. Following upon that, the Central Government has now taken it over again and I want to say that outside of jointed cactus, the country is suffering as the result of there being very little control over noxious weeds throughout South Africa. As a matter of fact they are on the increase and I sincerely hope that this Bill will make a fair contribution towards their control. Sir, we are prepared to accept this Bill. We are going to ask the Minister to accept what we regard as simple amendments to improve the Bill and I hope he will agree with us when the time comes, because the success of this Bill depends on three main feautures. The first is the efficacy of the technical hormones used. The second is the human element, which depends on the efficiency of the individuals employed to get rid of these weeds. It is astounding to know the extent to which this weed has encroached upon some of the most valuable land in this country. The third item is most important to us. The Minister well knows that jointed cactus has spread from the areas in which it was very dense at one time into the Keiskama, the Buffalo and the Kei Rivers, to say nothing of the Fish River. From the Fish to the Kei there is an enormous tract of country which is entirely under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration, and there is this serious infection of jointed cactus in all those rivers. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends doing about it, because it can be one of the most serious sources or re-infestation. As a matter of fact, there are farms which were clean in close proximity to the Fish River at one time, but to-day they are some of the worst infested areas in the Republic. I hope the Minister will tell us what he intends doing about that.

This Bill provides for other weeds also, and I want to remind the hon. the Minister that throughout the Republic of South Africa cockle-burr is on the increase. There is a type of lantana which is regarded as a noxious weed and it is spreading. As a matter of interest I would remind the hon. the Minister that that plant is to be found in almost every garden in the Peninsula, where it grows very luxuriously. Added to this, the definition of a weed is everything that grows where it is not wanted. Does the Minister realize the extent to which the black wattle has become a weed growing in the watersheds of this country?

And the silver wattle.

I am glad to receive support from that quarter. The effect that the black wattle is having on the watersheds and the rivers, where it forms a ribbon for anything up to 50 miles, is something that the Minister will have to think of in the future.

What about afforestation generally?

I am sorry the Minister does not know what is going on. He will find that the southern sides of most of the mountainous, densely wooded indigenous forests are the biggest holders of water. But there is an encroachment of wattle in those areas and the indigenous forests are being killed and the waters are drying up. That is what is happening. Members of his own Department will tell the Minister that wattle is one of the most dangerous plants, and I regard it as a weed. I am asking the Minister to think seriously about including black wattle as a weed where it is not wanted and where it will seriously affect our water supplies.

What is the Minister going to do about these areas I have mentioned and their re-infestation? What action will he take in regard to the eradication of that particular weed in those areas? The Minister must realize that those areas are almost exclusively occupied by Natives and that there is little or no control because the Native in general is not interested in eradicating any weed. I want to ask the Minister whether he is still carrying out research into the various bugs or parasites that have been used from time to time in order to destroy the various types of cactus. In the Southern States of America you have a measure of control by cochineal and various other parasites. Has the Minister considered an investigation into importing some of the more virulent forms of parasites, with a view to assisting in the eradication and control of jointed cactus? I am going merely by what I have read, but if they are keeping jointed cactus under control there, why is it not possible for us to import or try to develop a more virulent type of parasite which can do good work in this country? I am sorry that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is not present because he has had decidedly more experience as far as jointed cactus is concerned than I have, and I think there are only one or two members on that side of the House whose knowledge can compare with his. I can assure you that he could have made a very valuable contribution to this debate if he had been present. Sir, the hon. member for Albany had one of his farms placed under the control of the Government for a period of five years, and he indicated to me that when it was taken over at the end of five years, it was as bad as it was when they originally took it over.

It was worse.

However that may be, I come back again to this question that there are parasites. Is it not possible for us to get those parasites and to develop a more virulent form which I understand is capable of attacking jointed cactus to a degree where it practically brings it down to ground level. Sir, if we can get some parasite to do that and then try to cope with the problem by some other means thereafter, I think we will be making a valuable contribution towards the extermination of that weed in this country.

I want to come now to the question on which we are at variance with the hon. the Minister. The Minister proposes to amend Section of the principal Act by inserting a new 5bis which reads—

Sir, the hon. the Minister has some of the most valuable officers in his Department as extension officers; he has some of the most able hands in this country on soil conservation committees, and I do feel that it is his duty to employ those men to give him the advice which is so necessary in these undertakings. If he wants to go further he can have a special man or special men for this express purpose, but he should not merely say “officer” in the proposed new section without being more specific, because “officer” may mean an officer of his Department who could not recognize jointed cactus if he saw it. Let us rather stipulate what type of officer it should be. It can be and I think it should be an extension officer and an additional specially trained noxious weed officer. Then we would know where we are.

There is one other item which I just want to deal with shortly. In sub-section (3) of the proposed new Section 5bis reference is made to “a person who thereafter become the occupier or (while there is no occupier) owner of the land to which the order relates”. Surely the extension officers and the soil conservation committees and the Deeds Office and a magistrate all know who the owner of the land is. To bandy with this word as we are doing is not satisfactory and never will be satisfactory towards agriculture, because what occupier is going to undertake on short lease or even on long lease to eradicate from anybody’s farm noxious weeds which should have been eradicated by the owner?

Sir, I said in my opening remark, we are prepared to support this legislation and we sincerely ask the Minister to accept some change here which will make the position more satisfactory with regard to the officer who is to give him the information on which he is to prosecute or to take such steps as he deems fit thereafter.

In view of the fact that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat expressed the opinion during this important debate that one of the hon. members on their side could have made an important contribution to this debate, namely the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker), I want to take this opportunity to express the hope that the hon. member for Albany will recover from his indisposition very soon. That is the wish of all of us, because he can undoubtedly make very good suggestions. I am also glad that the hon. member has intimated that they will support this Bill, but in view of the fact that this is a measure of the utmost importance which affects the future of our country, I want to move with your consent, Mr. Speaker—