Mr. Speaker, I move—

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules),
Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly.

10 February 1981.

Report to be considered.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Select Committee on Pensions, as follows:

1. I. That it is unable to recommend that the prayer of Isa Hoffman be entertained.
2. II. That it has been unable to complete its inquiries into the petitions of H. G. H. Bell, R. Bigalke, P. K. Cliff, Marge Courtenay-Latimer, G. T. du Preez, Martha H. Fawcett, E. L. Fisher, R. G. L. Hourquebie, T. G. Hughes, L. G. Murray, J. Rama, J. Taillard, J. C. R. Wessels and L. F. Wood, and recommends that they be referred to the Select Committee on Pensions at an early stage in the next session.
3. III. That with reference to the petition of Gladys L. Schroenn, it has no recommendation to make, as it understands that the petitioner’s case has been met administratively.

F. J. LE ROUX (Hercules), Chairman.

Committee Rooms,

House of Assembly.

10 February 1981.

Report to be considered.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

It has become customary to review the benefits payable in respect of injury on duty every few years in the light of changed economic conditions in our country. A general improvement of benefits was passed during the 1977 Parliamentary session and during 1979, current pensions in respect of accidents that had occurred prior to the commencement of the Workmen’s Compensation Amendment Act, 1977, were increased by 15%. In the meantime, however, the cost of living index has again risen considerably and further improvements are now being recommended after consultation with the various risk-bearers and employer organizations. As a result of general increases in earnings since the determination of the limit during 1977, it has also become necessary to extend the scope of the Act with regard to the earnings limit for the inclusion of a workman under the Act. For the sake of clarity, and in order to facilitate the administration of the Act, it is also being recommended that the wording of certain sections of the Act should be revised.

I have already tabled an explanatory memorandum, but for further elucidation I still wish to illustrate by means of a few examples the most important improvements which are being recommended:

1. 1. A workman earns R700,00 per month and, as a result of an injury on duty, sustains a temporary disablement which causes him to be unable to work for a month. Under the present dispensation, he receives periodical payments equivalent to 75% of his monthly earnings up to R400 of such earnings; that is to say, he receives R300. In terms of the proposed amendments, he will receive 75% of R400 plus 50% of the earnings above R400, i.e., a total of R450, which means an increase of R150 for the month. If his monthly earnings had been R1 000, he would not have qualified for any benefits unless his employer had made a prior arrangement with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner for cover for his employees, regardless of the scale of their earnings. At present compulsory insurance is only applicable to workmen whose annual earnings do not exceed R9 600, i.e., R800 per month. The proposed amendment includes all workmen earning R12 000 and less per annum and consequently a workman who earns R1 000 per month and who, as a result of an injury sustained on duty is absent from work for a full month, will in terms of the proposed amendments qualify for a periodical payment of 75% of R400 plus 50% of R600, i.e., for a total of R600, as well as his medical expenses of course.
2. 2. At present a workman who earns R800 per month and sustains a 100% permanent disablement as a result of an accident, qualifies for a monthly pension of 75% of the first R400 of his monthly earnings, i.e., for R300 per month. The amendment provides for an addition of 50% of his monthly earnings above R400, which means an additional amount of R200, which will make his total monthly pension R500, compared with the present maximum of R300 per month. If the workman sustains a fatal injury and leaves a widow with three children under the age of 18 years, the widow and children will, in terms of the proposed provisions, also qualify for a total monthly pension of R500, compared with the existing provision for a maximum of R300 per month.
3. 3. A workman who sustains a permanent disablement of 30% or less is entitled to a lump sum instead of a monthly pension for such disablement. If his earnings are R400 or more per month the lump sum for a 30% permanent disablement is at present R4 080. If the percentage of disablement is under 30% a proportional amount is awarded. The relevant amendment provides that the amount will be increased from R4 080 to R6 000.
4. 4. As regards current pensions in respect of accidents that occurred before the commencement of this proposed legislation, an increase of 15% is being recommended, and a beneficiary who is now receiving R300 per month, for example, will receive an increase of R45 per month in terms of the proposed adjustments.
5. 5. Since burial expenses have shown a substantial upward tendency over the last few years, it has been decided to increase the allowance in this regard from R250 to R400. I wish to emphasize however that the maximum allowance of R400 is not necessarily payable in all cases. Only reasonable funeral costs incurred will be defrayed.

The main object of the amendments is to effect improved benefits for injured workmen or their dependants, and I trust that they will meet with the approval of the House. The intention is that the amending Bill shall come into operation as soon as possible.

Hon. members will observe that these increases are, percentage-wise, probably the highest that have ever been passed in this House.

Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that I am very grateful for the explanatory memorandum which the hon. the Minister has tabled and which deals with this amending Bill clause by clause. I should also like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the various examples which he has given the House. I think these examples reduce matters to practicalities, and I am very grateful to him for that.

As the hon. the Minister indicated right at the beginning of his speech, it is inevitable that measures such as these have to be introduced from time to time due to changing economic circumstances. It is also quite clear that evidence of the ever-increasing inflation is reflected in the changes which have to be made. These are good changes. Therefore we will certainly support this Bill.

We recently discussed another measure. At the time I told the hon. the Minister that one often has a simple amending Bill, one which is quite short but which affects sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands of people. This measure we have before us, will obviously affect a great number of workers who are injured in the course of their work. We welcome these improvements.

There is, however, one question which I should like to put to the hon. the Minister. This is in regard to clause 2. The hon. the Minister is now asking us to include “firefighting or other emergency service” so that a worker will also be covered in this regard. I welcome that, of course. I should, however, like to ask the hon. the Minister to clarify the words “with the consent of his employer” when he replies. These words are used in clause 2(a) as well as clause 2(c). I do not want to make too fine a point on this, but it has occurred to me—and here I am trying to be practical—that if a fire should break out in a factory and a worker immediately goes to try to extinguish that fire and is injured while doing so, he obviously does not have the time to obtain permission from his employer. I would assume that in this instance he would be covered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I would hate that individual or group of individuals to suffer any penalty as a result of this particular phrase which has been included, i.e. “with the consent of his employer”. In clause 2(c) it is put as follows—

I should like some reassurance on that point.

The advantages which will now come to not only the worker, but also to his family, are to be welcomed. This is a good step which is being taken. There is now also additional assistance in respect of burial costs—an uncomfortable reminder that all of us and our families have to face this at some time. I think this is also a very good step, one which will be welcomed by workers throughout the country.

I want to make one other observation, and I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will be able to respond to this as well. From time to time we receive lists of workers who have been injured and qualify for workmen’s compensation but unfortunately are not able to be traced either because of inadequate records or because the administration is found wanting. This seems to me to be very unfair if a worker who is covered by the Act is actually injured on duty. This very often affects Black workers in particular. They move from place to place and are very often in the lower-skilled jobs and therefore do not have such a continuous contact with their employers. I should like some reassurance from the hon. the Minister that every effort is being made to trace these workers who are injured and then move away from their place of employment, and, secondly, that there is adequate administration to give effect to the Act itself and to the improvements the hon. the Minister has now placed before us.

My last word, in strongly supporting this legislation, is to reiterate that this does not affect only a handful of people, but workers throughout the Republic. It affects hundreds and sometimes thousands of people who deserve our support. The fact that in clause 1 we have been able to increase the figure from R9 600 to R12 000 per year is, as I said right at the beginning, indicative of the ever-increasing cost of living and the ever-increasing wages and salaries that are paid. Therefore it makes very good sense to introduce the changes we have before us. We shall support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that once again the measure before the House is a very popular one. The hon. member for Pinelands said that he and his party are pleased to support it. However, the hon. member tried to water down the effect of the Bill a little—of course this is with a view to the election—by saying that the increase from R9 600 to R12 000 is simply a consequence of the increase in the cost of living.

It is because salaries have increased.

I want to shock the hon. member for Pinelands: Once again it simply proves that the NP looks after the workers of South Africa. This is what it is all about. Why did the hon. member simply not concede that? [Interjections.]

I am pleased that the hon. member for Pinelands is granting his support to the Bill. The additional amount involved in the provision in clause 1 will probably be quite considerable. This provision is now being brought into line with the specific provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act that already came into effect on 1 January 1981. We believe that this is the correct thing to do and we hope that the available funds will be sufficient to make provision for this.

As regards the expansion of the cover provided to the workman in terms of clause 2, I am in agreement with the hon. member for Pinelands. One can experience a problem, for instance in an emergency, in a case where first aid is being given or rescue work is being carried out, such as in the Laingsburg disaster. One may have a problem then, as the hon. member also pointed out. However, one cannot expect a trained man who can fight fires, give assistance and may possibly be injured, first to ask permission of someone. This is going to create a problem. On the other hand I understand the department’s problem of deciding how flexible to make this. How far can one go in leaving this to the initiative or the judgment of the worker or employee concerned? This can create a problem. However I am pleased that this expansion is in fact taking place so that these people can in fact be covered in the case of emergencies during their training and in providing services in the case of civil defence. What is actually also important, is that we can now have a better utilisation of the available manpower. I remember years ago, when there was a shortage of trained traffic officers, that the Pretoria City Council began training their fire brigade officers as traffic officers so that these people could in fact do two jobs. Therefore, during peak hours in the morning and the afternoon they could use the fire brigade staff too. In this way, this legislation will also be able to protect those people under these circumstances.

As far as the additional amounts are concerned, the hon. the Minister illustrated this in detail with reference to the examples and therefore we need not spend any more time on this. With regard to the funeral costs, I am pleased that the hon. the Minister said that they will consider a maximum of R400 instead of the present R250 in order to ensure that it will be a fair price. I do not believe the idea is that the Fund should pay for the additional ox that has to be slaughtered, or for the mourners, or for the line of black cars. The department will really have to keep a watchful eye on those amounts being used for the purpose for which this House is voting them.

As far as this Bill in its entirety is concerned, we cannot but support it and congratulate the hon. the Minister upon it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria East will forgive me if I do not comment on what he said because, as has so often happened recently, we are in agreement on the legislation which is being introduced here.

†We in the NRP wholeheartedly welcome, endorse and support the amending legislation introduced by the hon. the Minister. But there are certain specific questions of principle which we should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, questions to which he may give his consideration, and he may well see his way clear to bringing perhaps one or two amendments in the Committee Stage.

The first is of course in clause 1. We welcome the increase to R12 000 for the ceiling in cases of compensation, because, as is well known, the average White worker today earns R750 per month and the average Black in the region of R150 per month. This is obviously due to salary increases which arise, not only out of the shortage of skilled manpower, but also due to inflation. When one considers the very real prospect that South Africa will still experience a 17% inflation mark this year, I believe it is absolutely imperative that we should keep pace with the real salaries being paid in the market place, and this necessitates the type of increase which the hon. the Minister has brought about in clause 1. We in the NRP certainly welcome this.

We have a little bit of a problem in clause 2, but it is not exactly the same as the hon. member for Pinelands has. We have a little bit of difficulty with the word “competition”, and I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that many of the competitions that he has in mind may in fact be fire-fighting and emergency drill demonstrations. There is a considerable difference between a demonstration and a competition, and we should like to suggest for the hon. the Minister’s consideration that he introduces an amendment to insert in clause 2 the words “demonstration or” after the word “any” in line 16. The difficulty which the hon. the Minister may have in replying to the hon. member for Pinelands and to the hon. member for Pretoria East regarding the consent of the employer is not really a problem for my party. If one looks at the conditions of employment of any fireman, traffic official or emergency worker, one sees that the function of the fire-fighter is implicit in the contract relating to his duties and functions to be performed. Therefore it is not necessary in the ordinary course of the man’s duties for the employer to give consent for him to perform a certain action. It is implied in the conditions of service, that an employee will fulfil his function without negligence and to the best of his ability whilst he is in the employ of the employer. Therefore we do not see any difficulty regarding the consent of the employer.

Where the difficulty will come in, however, is that when that employee, either voluntarily or under the instructions of his employer, takes part in a competition or a demonstration which is outside his normal contractual agreement with the employer. That is why we should like to see the word “demonstration” brought in there. We should certainly want the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility that certain eventualities will not be covered by this amending legislation, because there is a difference between being in one’s regular service and performing the regular function for which one is employed, being involved in a competition and/or being involved in a demonstration of fire-fighting or rescue work which, in fact, will not be in the ordinary course of a man’s employment.

We also welcome the improvements proposed in clause 4 of the Bill. In fact, we welcome the improvement proposed in all the various clauses of the Bill where it is sought to improve benefits. In clause 5 we find it clearly demonstrated that the cost of dying today is increasing at a greater rate than the cost of living. Therefore it is absolutely essential to bring these benefits into line with the inflationary factor as well. In fact, the cost of dying is so high today that one of these days it will become quite uneconomical to die! [Interjections.] Nevertheless, these improved benefits are certainly being welcomed by us.

I should also like to refer briefly to clause 8 and clause 9 of the Bill, where it is obvious that the hon. the Minister had to bring the legislation into line with technological developments. We have this magnificent system of computers and microfiche today for retaining records. Here in particular I should like to return to a factor that was mentioned by the hon. member for Pinelands. This relates to the extraordinary number of cases in which workmen’s compensation is never paid out, particularly to Black workers, because they cannot be traced. I hope that the amendment as well as the technology and the recommendations contained in clause 8 and 9 will improve the situation for the non-White workers to whom the Workmen’s Compensation Fund owes hundreds of thousands of rand but who can never be traced.

I believe it is not so much a case of not being able to trace a man after he has been injured as it is a case taking such an extraordinarily long time to settle a workmen’s compensation claim. That is where the real problem lies. If the time period between the actual accident and the paying out of benefits can be shortened, I am sure we will improve the position quite considerably and there will not be so many people to whom workmen’s compensation is owing and who can never be traced. Then I also believe that the hon. the Minister should, within the department—within the Workmen’s Compensation Commission—appoint specific teams to try to reduce the number of outstanding compensation payments. I think it is imperative that that money should be paid to the people to whom it is owed or at least to their dependants. My appeal to the hon. the Minister is that he should make a special team available now to reduce the present high number of outstanding cases.

Other than that we can only welcome this legislation proposed by the hon. the Minister. He will certainly have no difficulty in obtaining the support of the NRP in this instance.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have taken part in the debate on this measure for their support. Naturally one would expect all hon. members to support this kind of measure. In dealing with similar legislation before, we have always had the support of all Opposition parties, because this is the sort of improvements we should all like to see come about in respect of the workers of South Africa.

The hon. member for Pinelands referred to the question, which was also touched upon by the hon. member for Durban North, regarding the long list of workers who cannot be traced. I should like to put it to the hon. member that the department avails itself of the services of all bodies that could be of assistance, for instance the Administration Boards. Furthermore, we do have the assistance of most of the employer organizations and I should like to tell the hon. member that the department does not feel that it should avail itself of a committee or any other body to assist it in tracing people. In any event, this is a point that we can investigate. As far as the suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban North is concerned, I shall ask the department whether we need the assistance of a particular body in order to help us to trace these people.

I should also like to refer to another point that was raised by the hon. member for Durban North, namely the question of competition as against demonstration. It is very difficult for us now without the assistance of the Other Place to investigate a matter of this kind very quickly and I should like to suggest to the hon. member that since we shall be coming to this House from time to time to amend this legislation we may be able to investigate this matter with a view to a possible amendment. At the moment it is not very clear to me whether this would be an improvement. As far as a demonstration is concerned, it could also be part of training and it is very difficult on the spur of the moment to decide whether or not it will be a wise thing to do to try to improve the wording of the Bill as it stands at present. However, I thank the hon. members for their support.

*I also want to thank the hon. member for Pretoria East very much for his support. As he said, this is the kind of legislation one would like to support, although it is of a very technical nature.

I should like to content myself with these few remarks. I thank hon. members for their support. We can discuss the clauses in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, during my Second Reading speech I raised a matter with the hon. the Minister which he did not discuss in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I have a problem in regard to the words “consent of his employer”. I motivated that earlier by suggesting that in the case of an emergency, whether it be fire or something else, it would be very difficult for a worker or group of workers to obtain the prior consent of their employer. The hon. member for Durban North said that he had no problem in this regard because it would be contained in the conditions of service. However, as I read this, I submit that this could apply not only to those who are specifically trained or set aside for fire-fighting or emergency but also to the ordinary worker who may, for example, be a miner or perhaps even an artisan on a factory floor and who, in addition to his normal work—and I think this is also the point the hon. member for Pretoria East made—is trained in fire-fighting or has fire drill experience. We all know that this is the practice in many industries in South Africa. I think that his conditions of service would only apply strictly in respect of his normal job. However, over and above that, if he has to become involved to the advantage of his employer and to the advantage of all of us in some emergency situation he can hardly wait until he obtains his employer’s permission. I would have thought that he would act on his own initiative. As in that case he would be bringing benefit to everybody concerned, I should not like him to suffer as a result of that if he was injured, or indeed killed, during that time. That is the point on which I should like to hear the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think it would be quite an interesting legal argument as to whether a workman not employed specifically as a fire-fighter or rescue worker, if injured during a fire when he is combating it on behalf of his employer, would not be covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. My feeling still is that it is implied in one’s contract of employment that one will at all times protect and look after the assets of one’s employer. We do not, however, feel too strongly about that at this stage. I think it is a legal point and it could be interesting to hear from the hon. the Minister what his answer is to that.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his reply during the Second Reading debate about the word “demonstration”. There is actually something wrong in the wording of the clause if a fire-fighter or worker who participates in a demonstration outside the normal course of his duties will not be covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I therefore move as an amendment—

I move this amendment to ensure that we have a fail safe coverage for the worker, the fire-fighter or rescue worker in this particular case, because as the clause stands at the moment, the worker is protected in the normal course of his duties or in a competition which has been given the employer’s consent. If, however, he is engaged in the demonstration of fire-fighting equipment or rescue equipment, then he is probably not covered by this particular definition or the clause as it stands at the moment. I have therefore pleasure in moving the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that much fault can be found with the amendment of the hon. member with regard to the insertion of “demonstration”.

As far as the hon. member for Pinelands’ speech is concerned, I refer him to subsection (c). What is at issue here, is an emergency service that is carried out by a worker in an impromptu fashion. I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the word “organized”. Therefore, the subsection is not referring to a case where a worker who may be trained for certain work gives such assistance on his own initiative in an emergency. If this is the shortcoming which the hon. member sees, then his argument has merit. As the wording reads at the moment, however, such a worker is entitled to compensation only in cases where he provides such service in an organized attempt to give an emergency service or fight fires. That is why I feel that if the idea of the hon. member for Pinelands with regard to voluntary assistance were to be added to what is already contained in the Bill, it would require an additional subsection. One would not be able to insert it here, because the clause covers three cases only, viz. in the first place training or demonstration, in the second place the case where an employee is engaged in assistance or fire-fighting in the service of his employer on his premises or mine and in the third place the case where the employee is engaged in organized service or work on premises other than those of his employer, with the permission of his employer. That is why I feel that the hon. member’s suggestion cannot be included in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, this discussion covers two points and one of them is the permission of the employer. As far as this is concerned, one must put oneself in the situation that is now under discussion. Generally it is a condition of a service contract that if a workman meets with an accident, he will be compensated for it within the framework of such contract. Of course, this is quite correct, but this is not what the discussion is about. If a person should act beyond the framework of his service contract on his own initiative, i.e. to provide a service for whatever reason on premises other than those on which he is employed, it would not be fair to expect the employer to take responsibility for compensation in the event of an accident with which such workman may meet. This is why the provisions have been stated in the clause in this way, and I cannot see that there could be any uncertainty, because in terms of the Act the employee is covered by his service contract after all. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it is not a problem. The clause relates to the workman who goes beyond his specific working hours or beyond his instructions and does something without the permission of his employer.

In the second place it concerns the words “training” and “demonstration”. If demonstration forms part of a person’s training, it is covered by his service contract. However, if someone demonstrates and this does not form part of his training, i.e. if he participates in demonstration teamwork elsewhere and for another purpose besides that of his employer, his employer must at least grant his permission for this. Otherwise it would mean that a workman could perform duties on any premises apart from those of his employer, and if he should meet with an accident, the employer would be responsible for it. Therefore I cannot accept the amendment because I believe that all envisaged eventualities are covered by the legislation as it reads at present. For instance, when a workman meets with an accident whilst in the employ of his employer, he must be covered by his employer. However, if a workman goes out to carry out a service, of whatever nature it may be, on premises that are not those of his employer and then meets with an accident, we cannot expect his employer to be held responsible for compensation. This is the whole objective.

After further consideration, I think that I should nevertheless withdraw what I said a moment ago, viz. that we would give the amendment further consideration and then possibly move an amendment in future to accommodate hon. members. I feel the clause is clear as it reads at present, and consequently I cannot foresee any problems. I feel that we are now looking for a problem where there are none. In fact, the department does not experience any problems with the provision. I have just asked my department whether they have received this type of representation following incidents in practice, and they assure me that this has not occurred as yet. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding which requires the legislation to be put right because thus far we have not yet received representations of this nature.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this debate unnecessarily, but let me say that I think that when it comes to a measure such as this, the House is perhaps at its best in arguing as constructively and creatively as possible in order to introduce the best possible amendments for the benefit of the workers.

Let me again quote the proposed new section 28—

I do not think, however, that one organizes an emergency. It is something that just happens. We all know the security situation in South Africa, and if one is employed in a particular area—say in a small business—and the adjoining business is affected by fire, arson, an explosion, a flood of whatever, I do not think one can expect the workmen to stand by and do nothing. One would want them to be involved, yet on the other hand one cannot always wait for the consent of the employer, who may not even be present at the time. So without dwelling too long on this, let me nevertheless say that I should like some assurance from the hon. the Minister that people who are engaged or affected in the future, even though this has not happened in the past—surely prevention is better than cure—will not be penalized. I should like some form of assurance from the hon. the Minister in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer again to the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper just to demonstrate to the hon. the Minister that he and I do, in fact, agree with each other. We are, in actual fact, supporting each other, but I do not believe that his definition goes far enough. That is specifically why I designed the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper to include the word “demonstration”. The reason for this is that there are three circumstances in which a workman can become injured, whether he be a professional fire-fighter and rescue worker or an ordinary employee who becomes involved, with the consent of his employer, in fire-fighting or other types of rescue work. As I have said, there are three circumstances in which injury can take place. The one eventuality is not, however, covered by the clause. In the normal course of his activities whilst training, or whilst he is acting in the performance of his duties as an employee, he is covered. If he is involved in a competition which has nothing to do with his normal duties, he is also covered, but not all demonstrations are competitions and not all competitions are demonstrations. Therefore between the two functions the hon. the Minister has covered in the definition, there is a third one which occurs very frequently. I am referring to a demonstration of fire-fighting or rescue work being carried out with the consent of the employer. In terms of the clause as it stands at the moment, however, it could legally be argued that the employee is not covered whilst he is involved in a demonstration of fire-fighting or rescue work, because it is stated that he is only covered in the event of a competition, or in the course of training or in the course of his normal duties as an employee. When one is involved in an organized demonstration, one can suffer considerable injury to oneself. In some cases this could even result in death. Therefore, in order to avoid future confusion about the circumstances under which the compensation is going to be paid, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that to be quite safe we should include the word “demonstration”, not as a substitute for the two eventualities covered in the Bill, but as an additional eventuality to be covered by this particular clause. I therefore appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his standpoint and include the word “demonstration”.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether it is necessary to argue about this for very long. With an amendment of this kind it may be interpreted too widely, and that is why I really do not see my way clear to accepting it. However, if it should be proved in practice that I am wrong, I shall review the situation once again. However, I can be guided by two things only: Firstly, the intention as it is interpreted by the department and secondly, the feedback that we get from the situation in practice—i.e. if the situation in practice indicates that we may perhaps be wrong—and I am not receiving any information of that nature with regard to the situation in practice. Surely a demonstration can only be related to the activities of the enterprise. The employer is prepared to cover an employee when a demonstration is held, provided that that demonstration has a bearing on training and is in the interest of the employee. But when demonstrations are held at other places for other purposes, surely it is only fair, as the Act provides, that this should take place with the permission of the employer. What is an employee doing at a demonstration at another place if his employer does not know that he is going there?

The only thing that is being laid down here, is that if a demonstration should be held and action should be taken in this way and the employee is away from the premises and from his work, the employee can do so provided that he does so with the permission of his employer. He must inform his employer of this. That is all. Therefore I cannot see that there is any sense in including in the Act the fact that we approve of certain actions and that an employer must be responsible for them if they occur outside his service contract. I want to protect the employer. No matter how sympathetically inclined one may be towards demonstrations, the employer must be protected. If this does not happen, it means that we are making a law which provides that anyone can hold a demonstration anywhere without the permission of his employer and if something goes wrong, the employer must be responsible for it. That is why I cannot agree with the hon. member.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister did not reply to my previous argument at all. I should like some reply, otherwise I shall have no other recourse than to move an amendment. Could I just ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to reply to the points I made with regard to the consent of the employer?

Mr. Chairman, I shall now reply to the question of the permission of the employer. We are dealing with millions of workers who are all covered. A great deal of money is involved here. We are making provision for the payment of large sums of money. I am trying to prevent one thing now: That we frame the provisions of the legislation so widely that accidents can occur at other places without the employer’s permission having been obtained for the employee to be there. This is why I cannot accept the hon. member’s proposal, no matter what good intentions he may have had. I think the provisions of the Bill are wide enough. I think I have already replied to the hon. member.

I do not think so.

Have I not answered the hon. member?

I cannot accept it.

He does not understand it.

A principle is at issue here. As I understand the hon. member, he wants the employer to be responsible if someone is injured, no matter where he may be, provided that his intentions were good. I do not agree with this. There are provisions in the Act with regard to employees who act beyond the call of their duty, outside their factory. The hon. member mentioned an example of a fire which may, for instance, break out on a neighbour’s premises and an employee goes there. If a fire were to break out on the premises next to mine, I would not take very strict action against the employee who helped to extinguish the fire. However, I want to prevent the provision being made so wide that an employer has to be responsible for accidents where his employees take action without his knowledge, whether this be outside working hours, or off the premises. Surely this is correct. If the hon. member was an employer and an accident occurred somewhere in which one of his employees was involved because they went to help someone else and he was obliged to pay for it, surely he would not be satisfied to hear that his workers were injured elsewhere and that he did not even know that they were going there. The Act provides that an employee can be injured and receive compensation, but his employer must have been aware of it before the time. I think “employer” means the management here. I think the provision can be interpreted as meaning that when a bell rings to indicate that a fire has broken out and the manager instructs the workers to go and extinguish the fire, it is still considered as permission. This is how I interpret the provision. But employees cannot go along on their own initiative and then when the employer discovers later on that they were injured, take responsibility for this. This is what we mean.

All right. I shall come back to you later.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to belabour the point, but I am afraid that the hon. the Minister and I are not meeting each other in terms of what is intended here. We have absolutely no quarrel with the fact that the employee must get the consent of his employer. We agree with that entirely. It is absolutely right. As the hon. the Minister himself said, one cannot have employees rushing around fighting other peoples’ fires without the knowledge and consent of their employer and then wanting compensation from him. That would be absolutely chaotic. I am not complaining about that. I want to make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister that we agree that the employer must give his consent.

However, we want to add that the employer must give his consent when an employee is involved in a demonstration as well as a competition. Many companies give demonstrations of their rescuing and fire-sfighting ability to other industries in order to encourage them to do the same. The argument could then be advanced that the man was not involved in a competition. That is the problem. A competition implies competition between people, people who are competing with one another to do a specific job. There are, however, many instances when, for example, fire-fighting and rescue teams give demonstrations with the consent of their employer in order to show what their capability is or how well their equipment works. As the clause stands at the moment, it is legally arguable whether a team that is demonstrating equipment is involved in a competition. Therefore they would not be covered. Perhaps the hon. the Minister and I were not quite understanding each other here. As I have said, we agree with “with the consent of his employer”, but we should like the Minister to include the word “demonstration” so that there will be no ambiguity regarding activities which take place on premises other than the premises of the employer. It is a fact that many rescue teams, particularly fire-fighters, do give demonstrations away from their employers’ premises, demonstrations which will not be covered by the definition of the word “competition”. All we should like is for the word “demonstration” to be included.

Mr. Chairman, according to the advice I have obtained, the concept “demonstration” is included in the word “training”. If it should transpire that I am wrong, I shall consider coming back to the House to have the matter rectified.

We can simply rectify it here and now.

No, that I cannot do.

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

Mr. Speaker, just in a few sentences I want to say to the hon. the Minister again that we are very happy to support this legislation. As far as the argument in the Committee Stage concerning demonstrations is concerned, I did not want to comment on it at that time. My own view is that the clause as it stands makes it clear that a demonstration, if organized, will be included. So I am not worried about that. I also think that almost invariably a competition includes a demonstration. However, I do want to stress again that in the situation in which South Africa finds itself, where we are experiencing emergencies and situations which arise which are beyond our control, I think that workmen ought to get the benefit of the doubt. Take, for example, the recent tragic occurrence in Laingsburg. One knows that it happened without almost any prior warning. One can take a situation where urban terrorism is involved. One is going to have adjoining premises where people are called upon immediately to come to assistance, whether it be the case of a fire, an explosion, a flood, or whatever, and I am not convinced that every protection is given to workers. We obviously differ on that, but I want it on record, and I hope that the hon. the Minister and his officials will look at that as well. That word we welcome. I do not want to overlook the tremendous advantages flowing from this legislation. We welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, now that we have reached the Third Reading of this Bill, the question must be asked whether the amendments that have been debated and passed have improved this Bill or not. One must ask whether the problems in the industry to which this Bill refers with which we are now dealing have been solved or whether they have in fact been intensified by the Bill. One wants to ask the question: What are the main problems in this industry? What are the main problems with which this hon. Minister will have to deal?

I think the first problem is that of exorbitant consumer prices. Much has been said about this during the past few weeks and much has been written about this during the past few days even. In today’s Cape Times we read—

In other words, they say it is now time for action. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister also feels that it is now time for action.

The second problem is that of uneconomic producer prices. We all know that the return on capital invested in the agricultural industry is one of the lowest, if not the lowest, in the entire industrial field in South Africa, and that this has been so since this Government has been in power. In this Bill the question arises: What has this hon. Minister done to help in that particular area?

Thirdly, there is an ever-widening gap between consumer and producer prices. This Bill deals with commodities, vegetables and other fresh produce to which I am referring. Today the producer receives less than 35% of the retail price of these commodities. I predict that by the end of this year the gap between the two be far greater. I ask: What is that hon. Minister doing about it?

Then there is an ever-increasing and stronger grip being obtained by monopolies and cartels on the wholesale distribution network with regard to these products. If hon. members do not want to take my word on this matter regarding the cartels and monopolies, perhaps I should give them the opinion of at least one fruit producer. I do not know whether he is a supporter of this party or not but what I do know is that he is a substantial and successful producer who is worried about these things. He says—

*These are the markets which are to a very large extent being controlled by this hon. Minister’s department. This report goes on to say—

Then his name is mentioned. Hon. members would do well to look it up in the newspaper. It is not I who am saying this. I say the same thing. Many other people are saying the same thing.

You are not saying it, but you are also saying it? [Interjections.]

I am saying this as well. Many other people are also saying that this is the case. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member should simply keep on trying to reconcile his speech with the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is against this background that the Bill now under discussion was introduced. That is why I have to mention the background so that we can place this debate in a proper perspective. Therefore we have to deal with these problem areas.

Those people on the opposite side are a lot of consumer haters. [Interjections.]

I believe one would have expected …

Get done with the background now and get down to the facts.

The hon. Minister would do well to listen. That hon. Minister should listen more and talk less. [Interjections.]

In any case you are singing your swan song.

One would have expected that the provisions of this Bill would help to put matters right, but instead the hon. the Minister has asked this House the powers enabling him to close down markets, and that without his being obliged to declare openly and honestly to hon. members of this House against whom he is planning to take action, against whom he is planning to use these powers for which he is asking. Only after two days of intensive debate—it was like pulling teeth—did we get the hon. the Minister to divulge the name of at least one market against which he would readily have acted if he had had the power to do so. The strange thing, however, is that the hon. the Minister in fact did not find it necessary to take action against that particular market because he condoned its existence. In other words, because he could not take action then, as he probably would have liked to do, he evidently found that time had solved the problem and that the market did have a purpose to fulfil. I presume that is the case, otherwise the hon. the Minister is not doing his duty.

That was the case of the one market to which he referred. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister now how safe the Phoenix market is today. The hon. the Minister told us here in the House that he had condoned the existence of that market. Nevertheless, I want to know from him how safe that market is today. I want to go further and state that the hon. the Minister now owes it to this House to tell us what defects that market had which caused him to contemplate acting against it. I believe he owes us this answer. He owes it to the House in terms of this very Bill. What defects does that market have? Why was that market not acceptable? That is not all, however. There are also other markets. There are other markets against which the hon. the Minister will want to take action.

Name them.

I want to refer hon. members to a visit which I paid recently to a place just outside Krugersdorp. I was invited to visit a group of young Portuguese farmers. Perhaps hon. members should listen to this story. [Interjections.] Those young farmers had faithfully marketed their products through the National Fresh Produce Market, but they found that they were so manipulated, that they had so little control over the sale of their produce, that the prices they received were so poor, that finally, in desperation, they moved away from that market. They then pooled their resources and set up their own market in a strategic place so that housewives could buy fresh produce directly from that market. It was fresh produce harvested only a few hours before being offered for sale.

They had a flourishing trade. They were happy and the consumers were happy. They telephoned me because they were worried. They were worried because they had heard that pressure was going to be brought to bear to close down their market. I want therefore to ask the hon. the Minister today whether he is planning to take action against that market or any other similar market. He owes it to this House and to the farmers of South Africa as well as the consumers of South Africa to tell us what he intends doing. He has that opportunity now, Sir.

Yesterday and the day before, the hon. the Minister had a great deal to say about the way in which he would protect the S.A. Agricultural Union and the farmers of South Africa against the PFP. As though the PFP were a threat to the S.A. Agricultural Union or the farmers of South Africa! I should like to say to you, Sir, that I wonder whether that hon. Minister has ever himself been fully dependent upon running a farm economically and living off that farm as the farmers in South Africa are. I put that question to him.

I have some further questions for the hon. the Minister. I should like to know how often that hon. Minister has gone to the national and other markets early in the morning and has actually seen what takes place there. Has he done that or has he simply listened to what other people have told him and has then come to this House and given us to understand that he has all the knowledge regarding the legislation and the area which that legislation covers?

*The hon. the Minister also kept on asking what our standpoint on the control boards was. Of course the hon. the Minister is entitled to put that question to us, and of course we are entitled to reply to that question. Today the control boards are costing South Africa approximately R25 million per annum. This is quite a large sum of money. We believe that in order to ensure effective production and marketing there must be effective planning and co-ordination in South Africa. We believe in it and what is more we say so. We say that it must take place in the interests of both the consumer and the producer. We are making this very clear today. If one sees what is happening in South Africa today it is very clear that under the NP these objectives are all too often not achieved. Control boards which act as ineffectively as, for example, the Meat Board …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to conduct a debate on control boards or the control board system now. The Bill does not deal with those matters.

Mr. Speaker, I am simply trying to reply to the questions which the hon. the Minister specifically put to me. I owe him a reply in that regard.

I shall allow the hon. member to do so reasonably briefly and concisely and then allow the hon. the Minister to reply to what the member says but no other speaker will be allowed to discuss the control board system.

Thank you, Sir. I am saying that boards which are totally ineffective must either be put right at once or abolished. That is my standpoint. [Interjections.] They must either be put right or abolished. I do not have time now to elaborate on this, but I should very much like to do so on another occasion. I now want to abide by the ruling of the Chair.

Which boards?

The Cabinet is the first which ought to be abolished! [Interjections.]

I now come to another aspect, the last one with which I am going to deal and which flows from the hon. the Minister’s handling the legislation during its passage through the House. The hon. the Minister took time out to give us advice on how to conduct ourselves in a debate of this kind. I, in turn, should like to give him some advice as well. In this House we have had many agricultural debates and they were always conducted at a reasonably high level—until this debate. At times that hon. Minister used language which was so excessive that if it had been used on a Saturday afternoon at Klapmuts, the user of such language certainly would have been put away for disturbing the peace.

Who started it?

We are not accustomed to the kind of debate in which we got involved during the consideration of the legislation under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member not casting a reflection on the Chair in saying that the language which was being allowed in this House was of such a poor standard that a person who used it in a public place would be locked up? I do not believe that the hon. member’s remark was a fair one.

Order! I must point out to the hon. member for Wynberg that I considered the remark in question to be a reflection on the hon. the Minister, for I can imagine what happens at Klapmuts on a Saturday afternoon. The hon. member must withdraw the remark.

Sir, I withdraw it.

†Perhaps rather than to give advice, I should appeal to the hon. the Minister, I do not know whether he can take advice. I appeal to the hon. the Minister that when we discuss matters as serious as the production of food, something with which the Bill deals indirectly, we ought to try to be serious about it …

Talk to Lorimer in front of you.

We certainly ought to try not to make politics out of agriculture. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor and his Deputy Minister have for a long time, certainly since I have been in this House, succeeded in that admirably. I think the hon. the Minister should try to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened attentively …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. the Minister was on his feet before I had the opportunity …

Order! I put the question, but nobody rose.

Sir, I stood up at the same time the hon. the Minister did.

It seems to me you are scared, Pietie.

Order! I did not see the hon. member for Orange Grove, but if he did rise, although perhaps a bit slowly, I shall see him now.

Sir, I had thought that perhaps some hon. member on that side would like to participate in the debate …

You will have to be quicker in Durban North, Rupert.

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

We have come to the end of this discussion and a most interesting discussion it has been. On the first day we discussed the Bill, we asked the hon. the Minister why he needed the additional powers conferred upon him in terms of the Bill, but he did not answer. He said there were a variety of reasons and he also said that one or other body had approved of it, but he did not answer. Just as the hon. member for Wynberg said, it was like drawing teeth to get from the hon. the Minister finally that what he had in mind was a market at Phoenix, Durban. I have not seen that market and I know nothing about it, but I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what he disliked about that market.

Why do you not go and ascertain it there?

In a free enterprise system—that side of the House is committed to a free enterprise system …

They fooled me!

… markets that are of benefit to the farmer or the consumer are things which the Government should encourage. Why does a market like that spring up? It springs up because farmers are dissatisfied with the way in which their produce is being handled. The consumer, too, with good reason, is dissatisfied with the prices they have to pay. One of the things which are very pertinent to what is happening in South Africa today, is the prices which the consumer has to pay for food. If that price bore any relation at all to what the farmer was getting, then of course there might be some good reason for it. However, that is not so, because the consumer is paying far more than he should, and it should be the object of the Government to try to oil the wheels of the marketing system for the maximum benefit to both the farmer and the consumer. I stress the word “farmer” because the hon. the Minister has throughout this debate, during which he has been playing political games with agriculture, tried to set up skittles. He has also tried to interpret in his own way what I and other hon. members of this party have said and have then slapped that down. He chose to interpret my viewpoint as if I had said that I was against the farmers of South Africa, and that is totally untrue. [Interjections.] Why I say the hon. the Minister is playing games with agriculture—which is most regrettable, because it is a very serious subject—is that he makes election speeches instead of dealing with the problems.

So are you.

Not at all, Mr. Speaker, not at all. I still request that hon. Minister to give us some answers as to why a market such as the Phoenix market is considered to be undesirable.

It is near Durban North.

What sort of problem is he trying to deal with? In the seven years since the Marketing Act …

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister wishes to make a speech at the same time as I do, I will be very grateful if he will do so a little softer so that I can at least hear what I am trying to say. [Interjections.] He keeps on talking, Sir, and it is very difficult for me to talk with such a barrage of interjections coming from him. However, I must ask the hon. the Minister what he dislikes about this market. The sort of market the hon. member for Wynberg described is the sort of market that I believe should be encouraged. If it is the intention of the hon. the Minister to start taking action against markets, establishments or shops that enable the farmer to sell direct to the consumer, I am going to quarrel with him. In the absence of any explanation from the hon. the Minister I am entitled to believe exactly what I am now putting forward. He is being given these powers, yet he will not say why he wants to use them. Naturally I am very suspicious and I think the consumers of South Africa are very suspicious too. They have every justification of being suspicious, because the consumers of South Africa are fed up with further controls, such as the control which will result from the passing of this Bill. They are fed up with the way this Government has organized the marketing of food. [Interjections.] They are completely fed up. The farmers are fed up; the consumers are fed up, and it is the job of that hon. Minister to decide what he is going to do about it.

You are running away from your constituency.

It amuses me that the hon. the Minister tries to change the subject as soon as he is under pressure. He knows he is in the wrong as far as this Bill is concerned. I would suggest to him that he devote his time to agriculture instead of resorting to electioneering. I would imagine his seat is safe or does he perhaps fear that the Herstigte Nasionale Party or Connie Mulder’s party could come along and give him trouble?

Andries is undermining him.

He is no longer an ordinary member of this House. He is in a very exalted position, because he is now an hon. Minister with responsibility for one of the most important industries in South Africa. His job now is to look after the whole agricultural scene, and that does not only involve looking after the farmers. It involves looking after the consumer as well.

He is deaf.

Unfortunately it appears to be so. I find the hon. the Ministers attitude most extraordinary in that there appears to be a total disregard for consumer interest.

Order! The hon. member must come nearer to the Bill.

Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I have over the last few years taken the trouble to go to the Johannesburg market on 15 or 20 occasions early in the morning because I wanted to look at the operation of that market. I wanted to see just how efficiently it is run. Within the framework in which it works it runs quite efficiently. There are, however, certain snags in that market and this involves additional cost to the consumer. A greengrocer goes to that market with the intention of buying his stock in trade. He goes to one hall to buy his tomatoes and buys the tomatoes. Then he goes off to buy his greens, but finds that a wholesaler has cornered the market and bought all the good quality stuff there is. So he is forced to go to that wholesaler and buy the product he requires. In other words, a middleman is introduced unnecessarily. This is all right in a free-enterprise system, as the hon. the Minister says, but the whole thing goes further than that. That market actually encourages those wholesalers to operate. For example, it gives them house-room, but I do not believe it should do so.

[Inaudible.]

This is because of the Government. One finds middlemen by the thousands all taking their slice, and the person who finally suffers is the consumer, and that hon. member knows it.

Surely the shopkeeper can pay the same price as the wholesaler?

It should be the object of this Government, when introducing legislation of this nature, to shorten the road to the consumer, so that the farmer can get a good price and the consumer can pay a fair price. Nobody is asking that the consumer pay an unreasonably low price for the fruit and vegetables he buys at fresh produce markets, but what he must have is a fair price. At the moment, however, he is not paying a fair price because of the marketing mechanisms that have been allowed to flourish, and this Bill is a perfect example of bureaucracy and red tape that is totally unnecessary.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall certainly do so. I am just speaking on the Bill in the wider context …

Order! I think the hon. member has been allowed to speak very widely indeed. He must now come back to the Bill.

I shall attempt to come back to the specific clause the quarrel is all about. Unless that hon. Minister can give us reasons to indicate why he wishes to close down any establishment—any establishment at all—he stands condemned as somebody who does not look after the consumer. He must tell us what this clause allows him to close down, and the wide definition, which the hon. the Minister has admitted is faulty, allows him to close down any premises at all. He can go to a greengrocer’s shop, a road-side stall or any other place at all and close it down.

He is power-hungry.

We have asked that hon. Minister kindly to explain what sort of premises he wants to close down. He finally admitted that his earlier explanations had not been complete and that the Phoenix market was the sort of market he had in mind. Why? What is wrong with the Phoenix market? Are the consumers of South Africa being taken for a ride when they go to the Phoenix market?

No, by this hon. Minister.

Yes, perhaps they are being taken for a ride by this hon. Minister, because it is not the hon. the Minister’s job to protect vested interests when it comes to fresh produce markets, and the larger municipal markets have a vested interest. If they do not fulfil a purpose by ensuring that the consumer gets cheap fruit and vegetables, they must face competition. That is what free enterprise is all about. That is why we oppose this Bill. We oppose it totally because it cripples free enterprise as far as fresh produce is concerned. It thwarts the endeavours of farmers to sell directly to consumers. If they want to do that in a free-enterprise system, we believe that they should be allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Orange Grove became very personal today.

Look who is talking!

Because they got hurt, because they were given a thorough beating, they started to become personal. They did so because they had no more arguments. Now that the hon. member for Yeoville has beaten the hon. member for Orange Grove in the nomination struggle, he is running to Durban North. But he is going to be given as thorough a thrashing in Durban North. We were listening here to the moaning of a person who had been hurt.

You are talking nonsense.

I said that we had been listening to the moaning of a person who had been hurt. I hurt him and the hon. member for Yeoville did too. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Yeoville on that. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is this relevant to the debate?

Order! No, it is not relevant to the debate, but it is the sort of introductory remark that is very often allowed in the House. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I have sympathy with the hon. member for Orange Grove. We know he has problems.

You are the problem.

He is in difficulties. He is in difficulties with the farmers. He said things here about the S.A. Agricultural Union which I really do not like. I do not think the remarks were fair to the S.A. Agricultural Union. Because the hon. member is now in trouble with the farmers, they are now trying to get me into trouble as well.

The hon. member said that the problem in our markets was the behaviour of the wholesalers. He said that they purchase everything on the market and then there is nothing more available.

That is correct.

The hon. member said that we were doing nothing about it. The hon. member asked for more control of the markets. But shortly afterwards he once again advocated the system of free enterprise. He has now advocated two things. First of all he advocated control and shortly afterwards he advocated the contrary. He says everything is the Government’s fault. The hon. member does not know how a market works. It seems to me that he does not quite know how the market mechanism operates. Now the hon. member comes up with all manner of nonsense here. He wants to speak on behalf of the farmers, but his party is in the pitiable position of not representing one agricultural seat in this House. Nor is there any possibility of their ever being able to represent one in future. [Interjections.] That is their trouble. The hon. member has been hurt; that is why there is so much howling. The hon. member understands the Bill so poorly that he has no idea what it is about. This Bill deals principally with fresh produce markets.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Wynberg. That hon. member became very personal.

I merely gave you advice.

In future I am going to make mincemeat of that hon. member. He must be careful. I know he is the temporary member for Wynberg. He will not be back. Now he is trying to make some impression in this House. The hon. member asked whether I had ever made a living out of farming. I do not know whether the hon. member has ever been on a farm. In any event I am a bona fide farmer who has made a living from farming. I am merely saying this for his information. If the hon. member wants to move on that personal level I shall do my best to sink to that level as well so that I can speak to him.

You are well below that level already.

The hon. member asked whether I had ever been at a market. I make use of markets in order to market my products. I often go there. I arrive there when the hon. member is usually still in bed and asleep.

Then you should open your eyes when you are there.

The hon. member also referred to the level of the debate. Let us look at the level of the debate. The hon. member said—

If we want to discuss the level of the debate, the hon. member should merely search his own heart and look at what the hon. member for Orange Grove said.

At the end of this debate I merely want to say what this whole amendment is about. If the Minister refuses permission for the erection of a market on the recendation of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets, the person erecting such a market can in fact proceed with it and operate a market there. A charge may be laid against him and he may be fined, but he may nevertheless continue to operate the market. The Minister already has the power to decide whether a market may be erected or not. Where he is unable to prevent it, he is now in a position in terms of this Bill to terminate the operating of a market in a certain place.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the whole point of departure was to close all manner of places. If the hon. member reads through the Act just once, he will see that the Minister acts on the advice of the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets; that the various national markets have advisory committees; that the national markets are operated by local authorities; and that action in respect of the erection of markets is taken in close co-operation with local authorities. What is more, because a market is not in all cases a profitable undertaking, it is true that the Government grants financial aid to local authorities for the sake of the consumers and the producers. In order to contribute towards the eliminating of capital costs relating to the erection of markets, we grant financial assistance in that regard so that those markets may be operated on a profitable basis. The cost involved in the erection of a new market normally amounts to millions of rands. This is a major capital expenditure and normally such a market operates at a deficit when it is put into operation. Now the Government grants a subsidy in respect of the capital cost in order to reduce the burden on the operating of the market. As the turnover of such a market grows, it gradually becomes profitable.

The whole point is that if we fragment the area in which such a market operates and allow a few markets to be erected in the area, it would mean that it would be impossible for any of the markets to be operated profitably. The only way in which it is possible for the cost of the erection of the market to be recovered is to require a higher commission from the producer. This legislation is aimed at effecting rationalization in marketing. There is no question of prejudice to the consumer. On the contrary, the establishment of adequate markets operated on an economic basis is specifically to the benefit of the consumer as well as the producer. This is the whole point of departure in this regard. That is why the Minister has the Commission for Fresh Produce Markets to advise him. I shall let that suffice.

Question put,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Land survey matters in the Republic are controlled in terms of the provisions of the Land Survey Act, 1927. We may say with pride that the Republic of South Africa possesses one of the best land survey organizations in the world and that our land surveyors are held in high esteem.

As hon. members know, an accurate and reliable survey is one of the cornerstones of an efficient land registration system, and that we certainly have. It is however, necessary for the system to be constantly subjected to critical seruting with a view to eliminating problem areas as they arise and to keeping abreast of changing circumstances. The object of the measures proposed in this Bill is in fact to eliminate deficiencies in the Act. I shall deal briefly with the most important aspects.

The Survey Regulations Board may, in terms of the Act, make regulations pertaining to the manner in which a survey shall be performed and the requirements with which a land surveyor has to comply when surveying land. The Act also provides for the imposition by a court of a fine of R50 in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any regulation. In practice is found that a fine is not an effective penalty. A land surveyor may, for example, re-erect a missing or disturbed beacon and fail to hand in his survey records at the office of the Surveyor-General for inspection and verification of the survey. Cases have occurred where serious problems arose and losses were suffered by the public because of the fact that beacons were re-erected in the wrong place because of an erroneous survey or calculation. Since this is in the first instance a matter in which the profession has a direct interest, provision is now being made for failure by a land surveyor to comply with a requirement in the Act or with the regulations to be referred to the Central Council of Land Surveyors for action. This council is authorized, in terms of the Land Surveyors’ Registration Act, 1950, to take disciplinary action against land surveyors who are guilty of improper conduct. The intention is not to report every minor over sight on the part of a land surveyor to the council but the provision has to be made so that action may be taken in the interest of the public against the wilful and obstinate offender.

The Land Survey Act containes certain requirements which have to be complied with when an indistinct or ambiguous or unsurveyed boundary has to be replaced by a surveyed boundary. One of the requirements is that an agreement has to be entered into between the owner of such piece of land and the contiguous owners who are affected by the survey. In this agreement the surveyed boundary is recognized by all parties as inalienable. If the interests of the holder of a right to any minerals are affected, it is required that that holder, too, has to sign the agreement. However, a deficiency in the Act exists in that no provision has been made for those cases where a right to minerals is held by more than one person and where it is not possible to have the agreement signed by all the holders because they cannot be traced or because some were to refuse quite unreasonably to sign the agreement. This deficiency is now being eliminated by providing that it shall be adequate if the holders of a three-fourths share in such minerals sign the agreement. A similar provision does in fact exist in respect of contiguous owners where land is owned in shares, and this arrangement works well in practice.

†In terms of the Land Survey Act, the Chief Director of Surveys and Mapping may order the establishment of reference marks in any township. A reference mark is a survey mark of permanent construction which is placed underground. It is encased in concrete with a steel cover and is easily visible. By referring to a reference mark a land surveyor can easily and at little cost to the owner of an erf determine the position of any lost beacons. It has however been found during the construction of roads, sewers and water pipelines in new townships that these reference marks are destroyed by the contractors and have to be replaced at great cost either to the municipality or the Government. A reference mark is an important survey mark and it cannot be allowed to be destroyed as a result of carelessness on the part of the contractor. After consultation with the provincial administrations, the local authorities and land surveyor institutes, and with their approval, it has been decided to place the responsibility for the maintenance of reference marks during the construction stage of a new township with the developer. He will have to take the necessary steps to ensure that the reference marks are not disturbed and in the event of such a mark being destroyed to have it replaced at his expense.

In terms of the Land Survey Act a general plan of any township may only be altered or cancelled with the approval of the Administrator or by an order of court. The Land Survey Act also empowers the Administrator to delegate his authority in this respect to a local authority or to an officer in the service of the provincial administration. Amendments to a general plan are normally of an entirely technical nature and do not warrant the approval of the council of the local authority. The United Municipal Executive has now requested, with the support of the provincial administrations, that provision be made for the delegation of this power to an officer in the service of a local authority. There is no objection to this request and suitable provision in this regard is being made.

A Surveyor-General may, if it has come to his notice that any beacon defining a boundary of a portion of land has been destroyed or moved, request the owner of such land to have the beacon restored to the condition prescribed by the land survey regulations. Provision is now being made that the Surveyor-General may, if he is satisfied that any person who acquires an interest in such land may suffer damage or loss as a result of the removal or disturbance of a beacon, convey this information to the registrar of deeds who may not allow further registration of such land until the Surveyor-General has certified that the situation in regard to the beacons is in order. This provision will afford protection to the purchaser of land who in good faith buys land in respect of which the Surveyor-General has advised the owner that certain boundary beacons are destroyed or not in the correct position.

*The Bill also amends certain designations which have resulted from the establishment of the Department of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services. Control of survey matters now becomes part of the functions of that department, and these adjustments are necessary.

Finally I should like to confirm that the proposed measures meet with the approval of the organized land surveyors profession as represented by the Central Council of Land Surveyors and the various land surveyors’ institutes.

Mr. Speaker, in thanking the hon. the Minister for the comprehensive explanation he has given of the Bill in the course of moving its Second Reading I should, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, like to congratulate him on his appointment to the position of Deputy Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services. He is aware that this is an extremely sensitive and important portfolio and we should like to say to him, congratulations. We should like him to use his undoubted talents and skills in the interest of the people he is going to serve. We wish him well in the years that lie ahead.

I should also like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is fortunate that he is introducing at this stage and as his debut a Bill which we on this side of the House shall support without any reservation, although I shall indicate one minor amendment which we suggest the hon. the Deputy Minister may well consider accepting.

We are dealing with amendments to the Land Survey Act and I think it is appropriate, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has said, to look at this very important profession. I think it is significant that we are amending an Act which was first put on to the State Book way back in 1927. That it has only been amended on a few occasions since then, indicates something of the nature of the stability both of the profession and the legislation. It is also indicative of the fact that the legislation has, over the years, stood the test of time. What we are doing today, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, is merely to amend the legislation in the light of the experience and to remove certain problems which have arisen as a result of developments in the land surveying profession itself.

As the hon. the Minister has done, I want to use this opportunity to say a word or two about and to pay tribute to the land surveying profession and the members of that profession in South Africa. In terms of numbers it is a relatively small profession, but it is certainly a highly skilled profession and one which I believe has maintained an extraordinarily high standard of competence and integrity. That high standard of competence and integrity is recognized not only in South Africa, but also internationally way beyond the borders of this country. Members of the land surveying profession, operating under the Land Survey Act, have played a most valuable role in the economic and social development of South Africa. They have not only been there surveying for the sake of the record as developments have taken place, but they have been out in the bush and in the desert, in fact, they have been ahead of development planning and surveying and preparing maps so that development can take place. Very often they have been out ahead in the wilds under tough, adverse conditions to ensure that South Africa can develop while we have come along comfortably to use the success and the achievements of their work.

We think of their achievements in the development of our towns, our cities, roads and farms. We think of the sudden surge of development that is taking place in South Africa today, for instance the development of Richard’s Bay and the railway line to the interior, Saldanha Bay and the railway line to Sishen and the developments that are presently taking place in Soweto such as home-ownership for Blacks. We think of the development of Secunda and the many new power stations in the Eastern Transvaal. These developments could not take place were it not for the work and the competence of the land surveying profession.

The hon. the Minister has indicated that there is one amendment in the Bill that involves the question of mineral rights. With the massive development, exploration and discovery of new minerals, especially in the Transvaal and North-western Cape, the matters relating to mineral rights is becoming an important part of the work of the land surveying profession. This profession has made it possible for this comparatively young country that is still in a state of development, to have one of the most sophisticated and most precise systems of land surveying, land recording and documentation that one can find anywhere in the world. This has brought to our economic society a certainty in law on the vital question of the ownership and possession of land, and I think the result of the land surveying profession’s competence is that we have managed in South Africa to keep disputes and litigation on the question of land ownership and mineral right ownership to a bare minimum.

When looking at this Bill we note the main headings under which changes are taking place. Clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 9 result from the fact that a new post has been created in our Civil Service with the title of Director-General, and because “Director-General” has the connotation of head of a ministerial department, it now becomes inappropriate for there to be a Director-General of Surveys as there was in the past. The title of Director-General of Surveys is therefore to be changed to Chief Director of Surveys and Mapping. One of the amendments therefore refers to a change in nomenclature to describe the head of a survey department.

Secondly, the Department of Land Surveying will no longer be controlled by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, but by the Department of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services instead, and certain consequential amendments in this regard are contained in the Bill.

Thirdly, the Bill also records that in any diagrams submitted for registration to the Surveyor-General, there must be specific reference to any rights to minerals and to the holders of those rights. The question of the holding of mineral rights and the names of the holders of such rights have to be defined in terms of clause 4 and clause 7 of the Bill. All these changes are largely consequential upon changes in the State administration and we believe that these are entirely appropriate in this particular Bill.

The next category of change deals with an amendment to the definition of “improper conduct”. This is embodied in clause 3, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred specifically. Two amendments are introduced here. First of all, clause 3(b) amends section 14(f). There is one strange situation under this clause, because the present section of the Act provides—

I can understand that if a person is found to be guilty of improper conduct, he could be deemed to be unfit to practise. But as we read this clause the situation is reversed. If the Chief Director of Surveys and Mapping considers that a man is unfit to practise, that man automatically becomes guilty of improper conduct. In other words, there is a reversal. In one case the unfitness to practise flowed from the consequences of improper conduct, and now the decision of the Chief Director of Surveys and Mapping that a person is unfit to practise could automatically cause him to be guilty of improper conduct. The surveying profession does not seem to object to this provision, but it does seem to be a reversal of the role of the Director of Surveys and Mapping.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, breaches of the regulations can now for the first time be deemed to be improper conduct, and as a consequence breaches of the regulations by a surveyor can be referred either to a court or to the Central Council of Land Surveyors. I think the ordinary land surveyor, in the course of his activities in the space of a year, could well inadvertently be guilty of what I call minor, minimal breaches of these regulations, yet even for an inadvertent, minor breach of a very complicated set of regulations, he could be arraigned before his peers and the Central Council of Land Surveyors. One wonders whether this particular clause was canvassed in detail with the Council of Land Surveyors. Apparently there was an indication that there would be an amendment, but I do not know whether this clause was, in fact, canvassed in detail with the controlling body of land surveyors. It has been suggested by an official of that council that the hon. the Minister might well consider including the word “repeatedly” in the clause. We shall consequently move for the hon. the Minister’s consideration—

This would mean that if a person is repeatedly in breach of the regulations he can be arraigned before his seniors. We raise that merely because we feel that a single breach of a minor regulation should not necessarily be the cause of his being arraigned before his council for disciplinary action.

The next issue I come to relates to clause 6. Where the local authority has certain specific functions these are now, with the authority of the provincial administration, to be delegated to an officer in the service of the local authority. In other words, it is not the local authority per se which is now to be responsible. It could well be an officer in the service of that local authority who is. There are always, however, risks involved in this. We accept that it is necessary, but we think there are always risks involved in delegating important functions away from the central body to an official, but because of the highly technical nature of general plans we believe that in practice the only way one can attempt to effect amendments to such plans that have already been approved or passed by the Surveyor-General, is to refer them to an official who has the technical competence, skill and training to deal with them. For these reasons we have no objection to this being delegated to an official of the local authority concerned. The hon. the Minister appears to be shaking his head as if in disagreement with my interpretation, but as we read this it does, in fact, delegate this to an official. In the normal course of events we would not like such delegation to an official, but in this highly technical field we believe that in practice it is necessary, or has become necessary, and so we have no problem in supporting this.

This brings me finally to clauses 5 and 8. These clauses deal with the problem which I know has been of concern to surveyors themselves and to township owners and developers. I refer to the whole question of the destruction, damaging or disappearance of beacons, markers or pegs once a township has been surveyed. As the hon. the Minister has indicated, prior to a plan being submitted to the Surveyor-General a survey has to be done. There have to be markers and pegs set out on the site before the plan can be approved. Once it has been approved, however, and before new owners take transfer of individual sites, it very often happens that the laying down of roads, railway lines, sewerage, sanitation or storm-water drainage—or the raising or levelling of ground— results in many of the pegs being damaged or destroyed. The fact that the pegs are then no longer there could result in prejudice to the new owners when they want to record their rights. This is a problem which I know has been exercising the minds of members of the land surveying profession for some time now. The hon. the Minister’s amendment is entirely acceptable in that now, in spite of pegs being set out originally, the onus will still be on the developer to see that at the time of sale or transfer, pegs damaged or destroyed are replaced. An undertaking has to be given that the pegs will be replaced before any further development can take place. We agree that some form of provision must be made to ensure that, not only at the time of the original survey, but also at the time of any further development, or at the time of the sale of that land, if there is any risk of prejudice to the new owner, the pegs must be replaced. We believe that clause 5, which adds this new provision, is a highly desirable one.

Finally, it is quite clear that one should not have further subdivisions of land if, in the opinion of the Surveyor-General, some prejudice can take place because a peg is no longer in existence. The Surveyor-General is to be given the right to direct that a beacon must be put in position or if the beacon has been destroyed, that it must be replaced, and that, unless it is replaced, he will not sanction any further subdivision or development of that land. This measure is entirely in the interest of good order in the land marketing business in South Africa and is going to protect the very important rights which citizens have to a clearly defined piece of land which is transferable and negotiable. It will also ensure that nobody will be prejudiced because of the absence of a beacon.

We believe that the amendments are all either in line with developments which have taken place in the profession or in the Civil Service or else will have the effect of improving the work of the land surveyor and of ensuring that in this highly sophisticated profession the ordinary South African’s rights are going to be protected in respect of the ownership and the transfer of land.

For these reasons we wholeheartedly support this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my very hearty congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister on the first legislation that he is piloting through the House today in his new capacity as Deputy Minister. We always expected him to repeat the success that he enjoyed in the past as an ordinary member, in the position of Deputy Minister too, and it was very clear today that he did so with a great deal of success. We hope that he will do so in future with even more success. Our heartiest congratulations and best wishes to him in his new task ahead.

On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to give our support to this legislation. I should like to approach the matter from the viewpoint of someone who is not exactly a land surveyor, but more from the viewpoint of a lawyer who works with land surveyors a great deal and consequently has a great deal of respect for those people in that profession. I think it is a good opportunity to pay tribute to this profession today, a profession that does not need to stand back for any other profession at all. I feel that the surveying profession is on a very high level in South Africa and compares favourably with that in any other part of the world where the profession is practised.

If we look at the land surveying profession from the viewpoint of the lawyer, there are two legal concepts that must be taken into account in South Africa, viz. real rights and relative rights. One of the real rights that forms a corner-stone of our legal concept in South Africa, is that of the indisputability of the right of ownership. If any right of ownership is recorded in the deeds office, after the property has been surveyed by a land surveyor, it is known as an absolute or real right. If this concept had not been valid in South Africa, absolute chaos would have prevailed in our legal system. That is why it is a good thing that the land surveying profession is on such a high level because the work that they do must be of an indisputable standard. The concept of absolute or real rights must also be absolutely acceptable, not only by the individual, but also by the courts of South Africa.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Sea Point said about the land surveying profession. It may also be interesting to look back at the history of the land surveying profession in South Africa, as the hon. member for Sea Point did.

If one travels through South Africa, one will eventually reach the Kalahari. This is an area where only two parties are known, viz. the NP and the third party. They know nothing about any other party. One finds that approximately 90% of the names of places in that area are of Scottish origin, with one exception, and I may not reveal this one in this House, because then you will call me to order, Mr. Speaker. However, the place names in that area are interspersed with the name of the Scottish land surveyor who carried out the surveys there. In this way one finds in various areas of South Africa, that the land surveyor who originally recorded and surveyed those regions, named those regions after the part of the world from which he originally hailed. It is interesting to study that history, and perhaps the hon. member for Sea Point, who is a member of this profession himself, may one day think of studying that history and recording it. It would be interesting to preserve that information as Africana.

With a view to the high quality of the land surveying profession in our country and the requirements related to the right of ownership, it is absolutely essential for any short-coming that is discovered, whether it is a basic defect or a short-coming that may have arisen in the course of the development of property or of areas, to be put right at once. The short-comings that have arisen, which the Minister wants to put right by means of this Bill, have been clearly pointed out. I think it is a very good thing that we have this Bill before the House today so that they can in fact be put right.

I note that the proposed measures have the approval of the organized land surveying profession, as represented by their central council and various institutes.

If one looks at the various clauses, it is clear that basically, there are three concepts at issue. As far as clause 3 is concerned, I think that the hon. member for Sea Point and myself are reading it somewhat differently. As I read the principal Act, together with these amendments to the principal Act, it seems to me that if we do not insert the proposed amendment, provision will have to be made for the fine of R50 in each regulation. In order to avoid this, the clause as I see it, is all-embracing. Consequently, it will not be necessary to make provision for this each time since this clause provides a blanket coverage. It does not change the basic effect of the legislation. In that respect I think that the hon. member for Sea Point and myself are reading it differently. As I see it, clause 3 does not detract from the prescribed rules and procedures that must be followed and it is merely providing a practical overall coverage so that the fine of R50 can be imposed in terms of the present Act, as well as in terms of regulations that may yet be issued. In other respects I see no difference in this. I do not believe that any individual complaint will now automatically lead to the immediate disqualification or conviction of a land surveyor. The position is that this provision will be implemented only when there is a continual transgression of the regulation. That is why I also support this clause on the basis of its effect in practice.

As far as clauses 4 and 5 are concerned, it is very clear that they are putting right a short-coming that existed in the legislation. A court case in the Transvaal dealt with the classic case of mineral rights where a ditch crossed the borders of two properties several times and the holder, or group of holders, of the mineral rights could not be traced or their co-operation could not be obtained. Many practical problems arose as a result. That is why the amendment which the hon. the Minister is moving here, is of cardinal importance. By means of this amendment, a problem of this nature can now be solved in a practical way. Therefore it is essential for this Bill to be placed on the Statute Book as soon as possible. This is the second leg of this amending Bill.

Thirdly there is the question of the obligation that rests upon the township developer, when he disturbs existing beacons, to replace them. In this connection we have the third short-coming since at the moment the individual is not protected against that type of disturbance. Here we also have the practical case that when people bought properties, beacons that were originally placed and were also recorded in the deed of sale, have disappeared in the meantime, as a result of the action or negligence of the developer or sometimes without his knowledge. Consequently the purchasers of erven had to incur tremendous costs for which they should not have been held responsible. Therefore this amendment that is now being moved, will mean definite protection of the rights of the individual, and of course one should also support this whole-heartedly.

Clause 6 amends the general plan that now authorizes local authorities to delegate to an officer. As far as this is concerned, the hon. member for Sea Point and myself both have practical experience with regard to the Cape Peninsula and we are both accustomed to it usually being an officer who does this, for the very reason of speeding up the matter, when it is not a controversial matter. One cannot wait for council decisions because sometimes this means a delay of two to three months. That is why it is a good thing that this amendment is being introduced so that this matter can be speeded up.

Taking all this into account, I think it is one of the best pieces of legislation that we have dealt with in the House in recent times, and I too want to grant my enthusiastic support to it.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to start by conveying my congratulations to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Of all the hon. members in the House perhaps he and I have come the longest way. I know how greatly he appreciates the promotion which he has received. I wish him everything of the best for the future.

Before I come to the legislation as such I should just like to react briefly to what the previous speaker said here. It was in connection with the Kalahari. I myself am originally from the Kalahari, and I found it very interesting that the hon. member referred to the land surveyor who gave places different names. The hon. member for Vasco said that there were only two parties in the Kalahari, the National Party and the third party. That was in comparison with the land surveyor who gave places there their names. He is the same person who gave a place the name of Hotazel. He of course derived pleasure from making people either extremely happy in their area or giving their area a name which upset them, or from giving a descriptive name, such as the name “Hotazel”. When one travels from farm to farm in that area one will find names such as London, England, Pretoria, Devon and Perth, and if you travel further and come to the places where the people had extremely intense political convictions, you will find names such as Botha and Smuts. In this way it happened, for example, that he gave the farms of two brothers, oom Daan and oom Frik, the names of “Botha” and “Smuts”. This was to their great dismay and for a long time they philosophized on whether they were going to be satisfied with these names, until they eventually decided to accept the names since they now owned Botha and Smuts and could do with them what they wanted every day. In this way they eventually found peace. This just goes to show what a great part the land surveyor played in history, and these are the people behind the scenes.

To get back to the legislation, I should just like to say that the object of this legislation is basically to afford the public, people who own property, greater protection, and as such we support the principle of this legislation. One has to accept that it has certainly happened in the past that there were land surveyors who were careless and that there were also developers who, because of an indifferent attitude with regard to the areas which were developed, caused individuals as well as municipalities, etc. to suffer harm. If one bears all these things in mind, it is possible to say that the principal Act was in fact a good Act, especially in the sense that it has allowed things to continue on a satisfactory basis for such a long time. There are however, deficiencies which now have to be eliminated. There is particularly one specific deficiency which I believe will be eliminated from the principal Act by the legislation under discussion. That is the provision referring to the holders of mineral rights. Whereas in the past an agreement was not valid if it was not signed by all the parties concerned, it will now be possible to conclude the agreement without this. I think this signifies a tremendous improvement.

†I think that a particular thing one has to bear in mind is that the relevant organizations, such as the surveyors’ organizations and the central council have in fact agreed to the additional restriction which may be placed on them. I was very delighted when the hon. the Deputy Minister in his Second Reading speech stressed that disciplinary action would not be contemplated against people who committed minor transgressions. Therefore it seems as though one can accept that the idea behind this measure is not to make life impossible for these people. Only people who are deliberately careless and who constantly act in conflict with the provisions of this legislation—perhaps even causing other people to suffer damages—will have any need to feel uneasy about the new provisions contained in this measure. It is of course a good policy to have legislation in terms of which one can handle such people.

The onus which is now placed on the developers to take care of the maintenance of reference marks, is something which we welcome. It is really something which is long overdue. It has happened in the past that developers have adopted a careless attitude which, in many cases, has resulted in unnecessary losses being suffered by third parties. While we accept that in a free enterprise society developers will of course want to make profits, one also appreciates that they should always be reminded of the fact that they have to conduct their business in such a way that they do not make life impossible for others. After all, in a democratic society I believe the most important thing is for one to have one’s own property. Once one is in possession of one’s own property one should know that that is one’s own stake in the land and that one will not lose it, that no dispute over one’s property will arise as a result of careless conduct or negligence on the part of either a surveyor or a developer.

*Finally I should just like to point out that this legislation does of course contain certain technical aspects. Of course I do not wish to pretend that I possess any first hand knowledge of this matter at all. However, it seems to me as though the amendments being proposed to this legislation would in fact be for the good, especially in that it would afford individuals additional protection and also in that it would perhaps facilitate the task of land surveyors. This does of course not apply to land surveyors who conduct their business in such a way that they in fact harm other people. We support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the hon. members opposite wished the hon. the Deputy Minister success. We know that he is a person who can carry out his task easily and carries it out as if this has always been his task.

When one considers legislation like this and one looks at a profession that has been very successful over the years, one realizes that what those people had to do, has changed considerably in the meantime. Previously they were chiefly concerned with surveying farms, but now they have changed over to surveying towns and they are also responsible for the layout of houses and erven. These changes mean that the legislation that applies to them, has to be amended accordingly. These are changes that must be made with the passage of time. It has correctly been pointed out that the profession is not one that transgresses deliberately, but as a result of the changed circumstances, new work and new legislation, for instance the mineral legislation, there are certain problems that arise and necessitate legislation to be introduced to this House with a view to making the task of the profession easier, in actual fact.

The legislation refers to mineral rights, inter alia. Now it is true that we sometimes find that township development can be delayed from six months to three years because the owner of the mineral rights on the land that one owns, cannot be traced. [Interjections.] I hear an hon. member saying quite rightly that one can even wait much longer. However, the fact is that the legislation will now bring relief in such cases.

Mention has already been made of the fact that the land surveyors as a profession have acted in such a way that there are names today that will be preserved for ever. In this regard we think of the Rissiks and MacClear. On top of Table Mountain there is a beacon that reminds us of MacClear, but such beacons are also to be seen in the Eastern Cape. These land surveyors were important people who learned to know and love the landscape of South Africa. They carried out a tremendous task.

In the meantime a new generation of surveyors has appeared on the scene. They are sought-after people, even in places like Caracas in South America. I do not want to mention names in this regard, because it may perhaps be thought that I am advertising, even though such a name also forms part of the name of a firm. At the moment offers are coming from Red China to such land surveyors in South Africa, to persuade them to work as land surveyors and planners there. This at once gives an indication of the calibre of these people—these sought-after people.

The department has introduced pieces of new legislation that facilitate the task of township development as well as of the application of the Act as such.

But there is something that bothers me a little and I must get it off my chest. As soon as one touches a general plan, one is in fact interfering with the completed task of the creator of that plan. For someone who is the second person to work with it, it is very difficult to see what the creator thereof envisaged with his plan. I make a request of the hon. the Deputy Minister to see to it that when a change is made to a general plan, no change is made to the conditions of establishing a town as contained in the general plan. If such changes are in fact made, they can cause problems. This is not stated in the Act, but it can occur by implication. Over the years the position has been that an application to make a change to a general plan, could be submitted to a court alone. There was a good reason for this. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Deputy Minister would look at this again.

This is good legislation. The provision that the developer of a town should retain those pegs until the selling date, is a particularly good measure. Problems can arise when land is sold in a proclaimed town, but as I understand the legislation, it means that after the town as such has been proclaimed and services have been installed, the township developer is relieved of his obligations towards that town. Therefore, the objection in this regard does in fact fall away. What is important, is the fact that there is still protection so that the transfer of ownership and/or the right of ownership from the township developer to those of the purchaser, take place under protection. That is why one cannot but congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department on the amendments that are now being made to the legislation. It is a very important requirement that that reference mark should be found in a town. During the ’fifties, buildings were erected over the boundaries in large areas of Johannesburg, and this gave rise to many problems. This is as a result of a mark that was not certified or a map that was not sent to the Surveyor-General. Incorrect marks were accepted at the time, and today there are buildings that were built beyond the boundaries. This has led to court cases, and ultimately it was established that the original reference marks were incorrect. Consequently, we cannot but agree that this is a good piece of legislation, and we support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Langlaagte although I think he was excessively flattering when he said that it seemed as though this type of work was already an everyday task to me. It is definitely not an everyday task to me. I have been thoroughly coached by the experts, the lawyers and the land surveyors. In fact, the last few days I learned words such as geodetic, cadastral and other words which definitely formed no part of my everyday vocabulary. [Interjections.] I hope my mentors teachers will not have the same experience as that of a well-known school principal in Durban a few years ago. Despondently he told his class one day: “I taught you everything I know and now you know nothing”.

I should like to thank all three parties for pledging their support for this legislation.

†I must say that it was with trepidation that I noticed the hon. member for Sea Point rising, because I know him as a doughty fighter. However, today he was nothing but sweet reasonableness.

He always is. [Interjections.]

I want to say to the hon. member that it fell very easy on my ear when he said: “This clause is acceptable” and “This clause is highly desirable”. He had nothing but praise for the Bill, with only one very small question-mark in regard to clause 3.

I did understand that the hon. member intends moving an amendment to clause 3. I think he asked whether I would consider an amendment. Clause 3(a) reads—

The hon. member said he intended moving an amendment to insert the word “repeatedly”, i.e. if a land surveyor “repeatedly” contravenes a provision of the Act. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether such an amendment would be acceptable. I think it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for any court to interpret what “repeatedly”— herhaaldelik—means. I want, however, to say to the hon. member I do not think he should have any fear that the Minister would abuse his power. Indeed, he does not have much power. The only power he has is the authority to take a land surveyor who is alleged to be guilty of some misconduct to a court of law or to refer him to the central council. I think the Minister should retain his discretionary power to decide whether such improper conduct is of a minor or of a more serious nature.

I want to say further that we intend at a later stage—perhaps not towards the end of the year, but hopefully next year—to come along with a consolidating measure to review the Act as a whole. What the hon. member suggests will then, in consultation with the law advisers, the central council, surveyors and others, be included in the legislation. My plea to him, however, is not to insist on moving his amendment at this stage. I can only express my grateful thanks to him for the kind thoughts he expressed. As he has said, if I ever have the privilege of introducing further legislation in this House, I am sure I shall not always have such an easy time of it.

As long as we understand each other.

Many thanks to my good friend, the hon. member for Vasco. He also made me think of names which I cannot mention in this House. I also know of names which land surveyors in their ingenuity gave to certain places. We must talk about this again when he and I next have a cup of tea together. I thank him for his support. It is an honour and a privilege to me to be able to listen to support from my very first opponent, the hon. member for Durban Central.

No, the second one.

Yes, that is correct, the second one. I thank him very much for his support. It augurs well for the future if we can bury the hatchet after so many years.

Many thanks go to the hon. member for Langlaagte as well. As I have already announced we are going to revise the whole Act, which dates from 1927. We hope to do this at a later stage by way of a consolidating measure. All hon. members spoke very highly of the land surveyors profession. The principal Act has been on the Statute Book since 1927 and since then it has been amended very seldom. People who have the ability to form an objective opinion say that it is an excellent Act, and they say we have a profession of which we may be proud, one of the best in the world. However, no law is perfect. Even the best legislation is imperfect. In the principal Act we see many archaisms, especially as far as the Afrikaans text is concerned. Our fathers wrote a different kind of Afrikaans to the one we write today. Therefore it has to be revised. There are also many sections in the Act which should in fact be included under the regulations. This will also have to be looked at. We hope to do this at a later stage by means of consolidating legislation. With this Bill we are only trying to eliminate the main problems. We have had very good cooperation from the Central Council of Land Surveyors, the various land surveyors’ institutes, the provincial administrations and the United Municipal Executive.

†The hon. member for Sea Point paid a very lofty tribute to the fraternity of surveyors. The surveyors represent a very closely-knit fraternity. Small as it is, it is a very proud profession, very jealous of its good name. I believe that the Bill before us, and the consolidating Bill which is to follow later, will further enhance the image and the prestige of this profession. As was said by the hon. member for Durban Central, these people serve the property owner. And I believe that with the advent of this legislation they will be able to do so all the more efficiently.

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister for his reaction to my suggestion concerning the possible inclusion of the word “repeatedly”. I can understand that the question of whether it is the word “repeatedly” or another word, will receive further consideration in the course of re-examining the whole piece of legislation with a view to its consolidation. In those circumstances, we have much pleasure in supporting the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to reiterate that when we are reviewing this Bill, we shall take the suggestion of the hon. member for Sea Point into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Technikon education was initially introduced and provided mainly at the request of employers. The first request came from the Department of Health. The Thutomapelo “school” was consequently established just outside Pietersburg, offering only health-orientated courses, especially on the presenior certificate level.

In response to further representations, several technical courses were introduced and the “school” developed into a technical college. The institution was consequently renamed the Mmadikoti Technical College. At the request of the local community, this name was later changed to Shikoane Matlala Technical College.

Meanwhile, the demand for health-orientated courses had increased to such an extent that it was considered necessary to duplicate the courses. For this purpose, use was made of the facilities of the Edendale Technical Institute just outside Pietermaritzburg.

Problems involved in offering the paramedical courses, in particular, at Pietersburg, meant that these courses had to be transferred to Ga-Rankuwa, where a training hospital is available. One of the considerations which prompted this step was that it was foreseen that with the introduction of a medical university, it would be possible to integrate most of the courses with the university training and that the university would thus handle the whole spectrum of medical training. This principle holds great advantages, not only because courses and training can be co-ordinated, but also because students can be better channelled and motivated. In any event, the products have to co-operate fully in practice.

Because the original institution had not been planned to provide advanced technical courses, facilities were added in an almost haphazard fashion. This meant that a decision had to be taken either to change drastically the existing facilities, which would even mean demolishing them, or to provide a new complex. An investigation revealed, however, that in addition to problems with the provision of certain courses of study, the grounds of the former Mmadikoti Technical College were in any event too small to accommodate such an institution. However, the existing facilities were found suitable for handling certain courses which are normally offered at a technical college. As a solution to the problem, it was decided to erect a technikon at Mabopane East and to phase out the tertiary courses at Shikoane Matlala (Mmadikoti).

†In the planning and erection of the Mabopane East Technikon such good progress was made that commercial and secretarial courses could be offered as from January 1980. With the further rapid progress made in the building programme during the latter part of 1980 the technikon is in the position to introduce, apart from the existing courses, a number of additional courses in public administration, Government accounting and finance and surveying as from the beginning of this year. The student enrolment is approximately 350. Technically orientated courses will be introduced as from 1982 after completion of phase one of the building programme which includes certain complexes and laboratories. The following five study departments will then be made fully operational: Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Geology, Mining and Surveying and Physical and Applied Sciences. An amount of R3,5 million was budgeted for this project in the 1980-’81 financial year. The Mabopane East Technikon is being developed in three phases and it is estimated that the final cost after completion of phases two and three will most likely be in the region of R55 million if we take into account inflation, rising costs, etc.

To provide for the growing demand for commercial courses, the building operations on the academic buildings of phase two of the project have also been expedited. Provision is also being made for further lecture rooms, laboratories and other amenities to accommodate the six study departments that will be in existence on completion of phase one of the building project. At that stage additional courses will again be introduced.

When phase three is completed, the technikon will eventually house 2 500 students per semester—a total of 5 000 students per year. It must be remembered that the majority of the courses offered by a technikon are sandwich courses, i.e. six months’ technikon training followed by six months’ in-service training.

I should point out that the main theme in the planning process is adaptation. The erection and equipping of the buildings are so planned that it is always possible to cope with changes and to make adjustments to suit the continuously changing requirements and demands in this type of education. Most of the buildings are also planned so as to facilitate the admission of physically handicapped students.

The establishment of the Mabopane East Technikon, therefore, is a direct result of the increasing demand for all kinds of technicians, commercial managers, administrators, paramedical staff and related professional careers in the Republic as well as in the different National States and independent Black States.

It speaks for itself that Black people must be trained for the professions on a basis equal to that of a technikon. The healthy development of Southern Africa depends upon the Black man playing his role in savouring the fruits and skills of the modern Western orientated society with its high premium placed on technical, management, administrative and other related skills. A technikon with its education facilities plays a vital role.

The factual transfer of Western orientated technology and other arts to people who have grown up and are still growing up in an atmosphere of traditional African culture and community living, despite a rapid Westernizing of certain life styles, is by no means an easy task. The task of a technikon is to deliver trained people who will be able to live a useful and productive life within the career directions in which the technikon specializes. A motiveless transfer of facts to students without meaningful integration of this knowledge will hold untold negative implications. The technikon stands squarely in the surging forward of a rapidly developing Southern Africa and must in this regard explore new terrain and find solutions to all the relevant questions.

*The Education and Training Act, 1979 (Act 90 of 1979), provides for advanced technical education. Section 1 contains the following definitions—

The development at this level, as described above, is quite legitimate, therefore, and may continue undisturbed. However, there are certain aspects of the existing dispensation which are no longer acceptable, because of the specialized training and unique requirements of a technikon. The following aspects, which I shall discuss in greater detail at a later stage, are briefly enumerated—

1. (i) Status of the institution
   • The fact that they are established and administered under the general Act creates the impression that this is just another “school” since it is included under the definition of “school”.
2. (ii) Control over institution
   • Under the existing legislation, a governing council is appointed without any statutory powers, i.e. with advisory functions only.
3. (iii) Courses and examination
   • Either existing courses, with existing examination and certification, or new courses, which have to be submitted for approval, may be offered. Legally speaking, the latter must be submitted to the examination board of the department for evaluation and recommendation, while the primary task of the examination board is to watch over school-orientated education, including the training of teachers.
4. (iv) Involvement of employers
   • Criticism is constantly being voiced about the fact that employers do not have any say in the planning of courses. The result is, according to them, that the courses are theoretical and have not been adapted to meet the requirements within the work situation. Although these organizations can be given representation under the existing dispensation, this would not be statutory and would moreover be of an advisory nature only. It is an open question whether these bodies would want to co-operate on this basis. As has already been mentioned, many of the courses are sandwich courses; i.e. the student will have to find an employer so that he may gain practical experience within the work situation for almost half of his course. Therefore full co-operation on the part of employers is a prerequisite.

Legislation:

This is an umbrella Bill. The other tertiary institutions—universities—were all individually established in terms of their own Acts. This means that four separate Acts had to be drafted and piloted through the various stages, while the Acts as such are basically identical. Every amendment to these Acts follows exactly the same course, i.e. four Acts have to be improved by means of four separate amendments. This is not only time-consuming as far as the officials are concerned, but also imposes an additional burden on the legislator.

With the obvious upsurge in the economy of the country, there has been a shift of emphasis from formal or university training to technically advanced technical training. This new approach is welcomed by all, but especially by the department, because training and manpower requirements can be much better synchronized than in the past, especially after the new approach arising from the so-called Riekert and Wiehahn Reports. However, this means that the need for training can grow enormously. Where we are now concerned with only one technikon, we can see that the training facilities will have to be expanded. Naturally, this may take the form of new institutions. If a law is now drafted for the existing institution, therefore, this may mean that expansion may be delayed, because it has to be preceded by legislation. It also imposes an additional burden on the legislator. In an attempt to eliminate this red tape, and to bring about co-ordination of training, it has been decided to introduce an umbrella Act for technikons which can be made applicable to any existing or new institution by way of proclamation in the Gazette.

Since most of the proposed provisions generally correspond with those of existing legislation, i.e. the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967 (Act No. 40 of 1967), and the Indians Advanced Technical Education Act, 1968 (Act No. 12 of 1968), I do not consider it necessary to explain all the clauses.

Clause 1 contains the definitions, which are self-explanatory.

Clause 2 provides for the establishment of a Co-ordinating Council for Technical Education which will advise the Minister on advanced technical education and on such other matters relating to technical education as the Minister may refer to it for its advice.

In addition to interested Government departments, organized commerce and industry will also be represented on the Coordinating Council.

Provision is also made for an alternate member to be appointed in respect of every member.

Clause 3 (Establishment of Technikons):

Provision is made for the establishment of technikons by proclamation in the Gazette. Provision is also made for a technikon to perform its functions, with the approval of the Minister, at other places, i.e. at campuses elsewhere.

Clause 4 (Status and proprietary capacity of a technikon):

A self-explanatory and customary provision in terms of which a technikon is declared to be a juristic person. Subsection (6) authorizes a technikon, with the approval of the Minister, to enter into agreements with other bodies in connection with the continuation of its activities.

Clause 5 (Existing institutions):

Provision is made for an institution offering advanced technical education in terms of the Education and Training Act, 1979, to be deemed to be a technikon established in terms of proposed legislation as from the date of its commencement. This affects only the Mabopane East Technikon.

The clause also contains the necessary transfer provisions in respect of the governing council, staff and property of this particular technikon.

Subsection (3) contains an entrenchment relating to the conditions of service of existing staff of the said technikon, who were appointed in terms of the Public Service Act, 1957. This affects only nonteaching staff.

Clause 7 (Director of a technikon):

Provision is made for the appointment of the director of a technikon.

Clause 8 (Council of a technikon):

Provision is made for the appointment of the council of a technikon, which will consist of no more than 30 members. The term of office of a council is four years.

Clause 11 (Pension rights and retirement benefits):

Subsection (1) provides that the staff of a technikon shall contribute to the Associated Institutions Pension Fund. Subsection (2) contains provisions regarding the protection of the pension rights of staff at the Mabopane East Technikon. The people concerned may elect within three months to remain members of the pension fund to which they have hitherto contributed. The choice means that such a person may elect to remain a member of the Government Service Pension Fund or to become a member of the Associated Institutions Pension Fund.

Clause 12 (Registration as student):

Subsections (1) and (2) lay down the requirements for registration at a technikon. Subsection (3) provides for the renewal— usually annually—of the registration of students. Subsection (4) provides that the council may determine the minimum requirements for study with which any person must comply before he will be permitted to renew his registration. Subsection (5) provides that the council may, with the prior approval of the Minister, limit the number of students who may be permitted to register for any course. Such a situation may arise if there is not enough accommodation available, for example, as a result of a delay in the building programme. Subsection (6) provides that the council may under certain circumstances recognize the qualifications for admission to certain courses of study. The intention is to prevent the Minister, who otherwise determines the qualifications required for admission, from being burdened with the recognition of such qualifications with regard to certain short courses.

Clauses 13 to 23:

These clauses contain self-explanatory and customary provisions.

Clause 24 (Delegation of Minister’s functions):

Provision is made for the Minister to be able to delegate certain of his powers, to the Director-General, for example, or to another official of the department. The powers concerned may be summed up as follows: Clause 4(2) provides for approval to be given for the immovable property of a technikon to be let, sold, exchanged or otherwise alienated. The proviso in clause 10(2) and (3) provides for approval of the appointment, promotion, transfer, seconding or discharge of people in certain posts. Clause 10(4) relates to the determination of the salaries of people employed by a technikon. Clause 10(5) relates to the adjustment of a salary to a specific notch with regard to the existing staff, when they become employees of a technikon. Clause 12(1)(b) lays down the qualifications required for registration for specific courses of study. Clause 17(1) provides for the approval to be granted for the establishment of a department or a course of study. In terms of clause 18, syllabuses are approved. Clause 19 provides for the authorization of an inspection of a technikon, and clause 22 provides for returns and statistics to be requested.

Clause 25 (Regulations):

This contains provisions relating to the making of regulations.

Clause 27 (Transitional provisions):

In view of the fact that the Education and Training Act, 1979, will cease to be applicable to advanced technical training, provision is made for any decision, approval, determination or other act, regulation or instruction in terms of the said Act to apply in so far as it is not consistent with the provisions of the proposed legislation, and until it is superseded.

Clauses 28 to 30:

These clauses amend sections 1, 5 and 39, respectively, of the Education and Training Act, 1979 (Act No. 90 of 1979).

Clause 31:

This contains the short title and date of commencement of the proposed legislation.

I hope hon. members will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I wish to convey my thanks to the hon. the Minister for his comprehensive exposition of the aims and objects of the Bill under discussion. We appreciate all the data he has provided us with in this connection. In the nature of the matter we welcome the development embodied in this Bill. The provision made in this Bill for the due construction and control of technikons, in accordance with which provision is now also being made for the training of Blacks is, in the nature of the matter, something that will be generally welcomed. Moreover, it is being done on the same basis of legislation as that which applies in respect of Whites, viz. the Advanced Technical Education Act, Act No. 40 of 1967. Then, too, it is true that by means of this legislation we are recognising the existence of the need for an adequate number of trained people to meet the increasing economic demands of our country. We all know that major bottlenecks have occurred in the economy due to the shortage of technically trained people, and that this has imposed a severe restraint on our economic progress, and indeed has created bottlenecks which have caused us to be unable to utilize to the full and further develop this period of economic prosperity that we are now experiencing. Accordingly I wish to associate myself in this regard with the following remarks by the hon. the Prime Minister—

For the rest, I also agree with what the hon. the Minister had to say in this connection in the relevant part of his explanatory memorandum.

It is very clear, Mr. Speaker, that if we wish to meet the growing economic needs with which we shall be confronted, if we wish to meet the growing demands set by the economy and the demand for services to our society, provision will have to be made on a far greater scale than in the past for training of this nature. Here I am in full agreement with the hon. the Minister as regards the various reasons he advanced for going about it in this particular way, and more particularly, too, that in the light of the example he mentioned of the four universities under this legislation, it is possible for more than one technikon, with its ramifications, to be established without his having to keep coming back to this House. These are all valid arguments which certainly deserve our unanimous support.

With regard to this Bill I now come to the second problem I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection. With a view to planning for the future my first question is going to be whether the hon. the Minister and his department have taken into account the increasing manpower needs. We speak about Manpower 2000 and the advance estimates made as to the number of technically trained people our society will need after the year 2000. If we take into account the fact that it has taken six years, as far as I can remember, for Mabopane East to develop up to its present stage from the time the original decision was taken, then it seems to me essential that consideration should be given now to what further technikons should be established. In other words, it will be pointless our waiting until it is too late and further bottlenecks arise. Because it takes so long to develop these technikons, it is essential that planning for those technikons for which provision must be made, must be carried out now, and we should very much like to hear from the hon. the Minister what planning and, of course, what financial provision he has in mind in this connection. In his document the hon. the Minister states that the cost of such a project amounts to approximately R3,5 million at the moment and that the eventual cost will be approximately R55 million.

In this financial year.

In this financial year? R55 million in this financial year?

No, eventually.

If we take it at an average amount of R3 million to R5 million per annum, then this means that it will take more or less 15 years before this technikon has developed to its fullest extent, to a stage at which it will be able to handle approximately 5 000 students per annum. In other words, time is of the essence, particularly if one bears in mind the lack of action in the past, action to create facilities for the proper technical training of Black people.

Then there is the further question of where new technikons are to be built, viz. once we accept that there will be a need for them. The fact is that in the past, considerations of an ideological nature determined where technikons would be built. The economic needs of the country or the real needs of the community were not taken into account. If we want to use technikons in the future with a view to the economic needs of the country, it is essential that other considerations be taken into account when a decision is taken as to where such technikons are to be established. In other words, the needs of the South African community as a whole and those of the economy will have to be decisive, and not ideological considerations.

It is therefore our standpoint that economic considerations and the needs of the community in question should be decisive when a decision is taken as to where such technikons are to be built.

The hon. the Minister did not explain to us why there should be separate technikons for Blacks at all, and I concede that a technikon does already exist at Mabopane East. In the second place, the hon. the Minister also failed to explain why that technikon could not fall under the Department of National Education, which controls the other technikons in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not become unnecessarily excited about this. Let us simply recognize that what we have here may indeed be a difference of principle and a difference in point of departure. However, I have the courage to state our difference in principle clearly to the hon. the Minister.

You will not be able to convince the hon. the Minister.

No, but the hon. member should perhaps rather speak for himself. I know the hon. the Minister to be a reasonable man and perhaps he will be more open to conviction than the hon. member opposite.

Our basic point of departure is that it is wrong in principle to establish bodies on a racial basis. We think it is wrong that race should be a criterion in determining whether there should be institutions, of what nature they should be, where such institutions are to be established and what service they should render. That is our basic point of departure. [Interjections.] I repeat that we reject the point of departure that race should be the criterion.

In the second place, we cannot agree that race as such should serve as a distinguishing factor in, for example, the admission of students to an institute, or when it is a matter of the control of that institute. I do just want to say, so that the hon. the Minister does not misunderstand me, that as far as technikons are concerned, we surely cannot accept the usual, perhaps in certain instances acceptable, or at least understandable, consideration that we are dealing here with a diversity of peoples, and that we are in this way affording recognition to the diversity of peoples in South Africa, because these technikons are not established on a national basis. We do not have separate technikons for Zulus, Tswanas, Bapedi and so on, just as we do not have separate technikons for Afrikaans-and English-speaking people. In other words, the argument that is sometimes advanced as a justification for separate institutions, namely that in this way we are affording recognition to the distinctive identity of the specific national character of a group, does not apply in this case.

I know that the hon. the Minister would not be so stupid as to say, in reply to my question, that this is a consequence of the NP’s policy of the recognition of the diversity of peoples in South Africa. He certainly cannot use that argument in this specific instance. I am merely stressing the fact that in other words, one cannot use race as such as a factor in this connection. The hon. the Minister therefore owes it to us to say why Blacks, for example, may not be admitted to other technikons in this instance, why we must uphold separation on a racial basis in this instance and why the control of the institution cannot be entrusted to the body which usually controls technikons.

Then, I should be obliged if the hon. the Minister would also give serious consideration to what I am going to say now. We can no longer adopt the point of departure that there should be separation on a racial basis purely for the sake of separation. The concept that there should be separation on a racial basis simply for the sake of separation is no longer valid in South Africa. There was a time when in terms of the philosophy of my hon. friends opposite, the principle was maintained that separation on a racial or colour basis for the sake of separation should be maintained in as many spheres as possible. That was why we carried out that principle in so many spheres, to such an extent, in fact, that we made a mockery of it.

It is you who made a mockery of it.

The hon. member opposite should not be so touchy. However, we have indeed moved away from that in many respects, because we have realized that no value can be attached to separation purely for separation’s sake. It is ridiculous, and that is why we have moved away from it in the field of sport, in the field of trade unions, in places of work, with regard to professional associations and with regard to universities. Whites can now go to Black universities and Blacks are admitted to White universities. We have also moved away from that with regard to service at counters, separate entrances and lifts.

Are you opposed to that?

No. But I am simply saying that we have moved away from the philosophy of separation for separation’s sake. If, therefore, the hon. the Minister comes forward with a piece of legislation such as this, then surely he must give us the motivation for it. If it is not separation for separation’s sake on a basis of race, then why should we support a measure such as this?

Then there is something else I should like to indicate. The Government has, after all, repeatedly stated that it wants to move away from hurtful discrimination. We could debate at length as to what exactly comprises hurtful discrimination. It has often been said that it is pointless our deciding what other people regard as hurtful discrimination. We must ask them. However, I have no doubt that one example of what they regard as hurtful discrimination is the situation of being prohibited, either by legislation or by Government action, from studying where they want to. That is what they regard as hurtful discrimination, and it is pointless our wanting to furnish our own definition of hurtful discrimination. If we really want peace in this country—in other words, if co-operation between Black and White is what we are really striving for—then we must get away from a system which always causes us to think in terms of separate institutions on a basis of race. To me, that point of departure—and I am indeed speaking on behalf of my colleagues in these benches—is in essence unacceptable.

Harry does not agree.

Now the hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite understand the dilemma we are placed in. After all, we cannot oppose something that is for the betterment of the people of our country. I have already conceded that it is an improvement. What we object to, however, is that improvements always take place within a framework that is unacceptable to us.

But who is governing the country?

I shall tell hon. members. If my hon. friend opposite would consider his position, he would realize that this is a dilemma for us. I only hope that he will not be placed in a similar dilemma one day.

Sir, in this regard it seems obvious to me that we must not simply use the existing legislation as a model. All technikons, whoever they may be for, ought to fall under the 1967 legislation. Technikons should be open to everyone. That is the point of departure of this party. I believe that I have now stated clearly the second major problem I have in connection with this Bill.

Sir, I now wish to put before the hon. the Minister a few technical points relating to the Bill. I should appreciate it if he would give attention to them. In the first place, we welcome the establishment of the Coordinating Council, more specifically the fact that employers’ organizations and other bodies will in this way be involved in an advisory capacity. In this connection I just wish to ask why provision is not also made in clause 2(b) for a representative of the council of the technikon on the Coordinating Council. Provision is made for a representative of the lecturing staff, but not for a representative of the council. That is how I understand the Bill. I should like to know why such a representative is excluded.

Although provision is made in this legislation for the technikon to be a juristic person, I was unable to find in the Bill any clause with provisions corresponding to the provisions of section 3 of Act 40 of 1967, viz. that a technikon may acquire immovable property, although this could perhaps be inferred from the provisions of clause 4(2).

I am also unhappy about the greater powers being afforded the Minister in this Bill. The Minister of National Education did not have so many powers in terms of Act No. 40 of 1967. Here I have in mind clause 7(3) in particular. I do not want to go into detail because I take it the hon. the Minister knows the Bill. I cannot find any section in the 1967 Act which corresponds with clause 7(3).

Clause 8(1)(c) vests in the Minister the power to approve or turn down the nomination of members of local government institutions to the council of the technikon. That is how I understand the provision. This power is not vested in the Minister concerned in terms of Act No. 40 of 1967. The Minister has only to approve local government institutions, but not persons nominated to such institutions by the council.

In clause 10(2) I really cannot see why the Minister, or by way of delegated power, an official, should have a say, not in the appointment—because I could understand that—but in the promotion, transfer and so on, of staff members. To me this seems a matter which should fall under the council. The Minister ought not to interfere in that regard if he has any confidence at all in the council of the technikon.

The same goes for clause 18, which vests in the Minister the power to keep an eye on syllabuses. If he has confidence in the council and the lecturing staff of the technikon, the content of syllabuses can surely be left to the council of the technikon without the Minister having to concern himself with the matter.

A further point which struck me was the absence of donors. The existing Act of 1967 provides that donors, and also representatives of local authorities that are donors, can be given representation on the council. There is the general provision that the Minister may designate other people, but it does seem to me as if it is desirable to make provision here, too, for the possibility that representatives of donors may serve on the council. I take it that the larger employers might wish to contribute towards the development of the technikons.

Then, too, it is also not clear to me why the council may require that a student to be a resident student. That seems to me unnecessary. I cannot understand why the board of a technikon should have the right to require that a student should be a resident student anywhere.

Finally, the hon. the Minister will be aware that provision is made in section 26(2) of Act 40 of 1967 for the annual reports of technikons to be submitted to the House of Assembly. This must be done in accordance with the customary procedure within 14 days etc. It seems to me that a similar provision is not to be found in this Bill. I do not find it in clause 22(2), where it ought really to be. Since provision is made in Act 40 of 1967 for the submission of such annual reports, I should like to know why this cannot be done in the case of technikons of this kind as well.

My appreciation of certain aspects of the Bill is evident from what I have said. I have already indicated that in my opinion this is an improvement on the present situation. However, I have difficulties of principle as regards the Bill. The extent to which this side of the House will be able to support the Bill will depend on the reaction of the hon. the Minister to the points I have raised.

Mr. Speaker, at the very outset I want to associate myself with the hon. member Prof. Olivier in his thanks to the Minister for the excellent way in which he gave a broad perspective of the aim of this legislation. He did so very clearly and comprehensively. I thought that after the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave, the hon. member would have understood this whole matter.

The hon. member began by pointing out a few aspects with which he was in agreement. After that he put a few questions to the hon. the Minister, to which the Minister will furnish him with the necessary replies later on. Firstly, he asked whether an investigation has already been carried out regarding the demand for technically trained people. I think this is a ridiculous question, to say the least. The hon. member has been in the House for a number of years and if he had done his homework, he would have seen in the various annual reports that thorough attention is in fact being given to this. That is not all. Further to this he asked why more technikons had not already been established. He wanted a reply to this from the hon. the Minister. I am convinced that the hon. member is probably also aware of the fact that the issue here is not only the site or the funds required for the erection of a technikon, but also the availability of staff, etc. However, I leave that matter at that.

Then the hon. member said that in the past the establishment of technikons was possibly related to a certain ideological standpoint. I am sorry that the hon. member raised the so-called ideological considerations. After that the hon. member laid himself open with regard to the principal political differences between the official Opposition and this side of the House. It has been said repeatedly in debates in the past that as far as this side of the House is concerned, we associate ourselves completely with the standpoint that is universally accepted by many educationists and in many reports, including a Unesco report of which I think the hon. member is aware, viz. that one cannot separate education and teaching from culture. This applies not only to primary or secondary education; it applies throughout, from pre-school education to universities. When I put this to the hon. member, I must add that this is not being said by Afrikaans-speaking White educationists only; it is being said by educationists throughout the entire world. Today I could quote Black educationists in our own country, who have stated this repeatedly. I want to quote two or three examples only. I quote what R. M. Ruperti says. He says—

He goes on—

I also want to refer to the Van Wyk de Vries Report that dealt in a very clear, penetrating fashion with the autonomy of universities. They said a great deal about this and amongst other things said that the university is simply a reflection of the community that it serves. If this is true—and I am convinced of this and I think the hon. member will agree with me—surely it is also very clear that this applies to the technikons as well— in other words, tertiary education in general. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we are adamant with regard to the standpoint that there are separate nations in the Republic of South Africa, that they must be given equal educational facilities as far as possible, as the hon. the Prime Minister put it very clearly, viz. that we are en route towards equal educational facilities for the separate population groups, but not a merging of the separate population groups within such a school or university.

The hon. member talks about petty apartheid, and he also talks about standing in the same queue, etc. This is a little bit of election politics that the hon. member probably wants to drag in in some way. The hon. member talks about the mockery that we allegedly made of these matters. The greatest mockery is that the official Opposition is sitting here with the number of members that they have now.

We might as well also let it be known that it is this which is the mockery for which the Government is responsible, and which has caused the country to develop, with regard too, to the provision of facilities to the Black people in education and on all other levels. We must not confuse this so-called hurtful discrimination and the moving away from it, to which the Government has committed itself, with certain standpoints on principle. It has already been stated clearly that there will be separate residential areas and that it will be the right of each separate population group to have its own schools and, together with this, its own universities too. We cannot move away from this, no matter how much fuss the hon. member makes about it.

You said the same about sport a few years ago.

I leave the hon. member there. He will receive the necessary replies from the hon. the Minister. In contrast to the hon. member, I want to say that for me there are certain truths and realities that we must also bear in mind when we talk about these things. The first of these I have already mentioned, viz. that we cannot separate culture from teaching and education, because it forms part of the basis of the philosophy of this side of the House. However, there is another truth too. In this respect the hon. member is correct. At the moment we do in fact have a tremendous shortage of trained manpower in all the different population groups in this country. This is due to the tremendous explosion that is taking place on the industrial level at the moment. We also need trained manpower, no matter to which population group they belong. The greatest challenge then is in fact training, and that we should give attention to it as quickly as possible, provided that it falls within the powers of the country with regard to finance, buildings, facilities and staff. Furthermore I think it is also important that we should only train people in fields in which there is a need for trained people. That is why it is important to me that this development with regard to the technikons is now taking place, not only with regard to the Whites, but also with regard to the Blacks. It is also important that the necessary technikons should be established as soon as possible on suitable sites, in terms of this umbrella legislation, so that people can be trained to comply with the requirements of the field in which they can offer their services.

If one trains someone merely for the sake of training, without there being a manner in which he can express himself after he has been trained, it would be a way of creating frustrated workers, of course with the concomitant problems of unrest, etc., which would automatically occur. That problem is also being eliminated in a very fine way in terms of the legislation under discussion because the umbrella council for these technikons will also be composed of the separate groups of people who will ultimately receive the trained products of the technikons concerned in their midst; in other words, commerce and industry, etc., as is set out in the legislation.

One very great truth that we must face up to, is that this country can no longer afford inefficiency. Therefore, it is necessary for us to obtain trained workers in order to ensure that we can bring about the greatest degree of efficiency, the optimum efficiency in the interests of the country. Then I just want to express a few ideas in connection with education as such at technikons. As the hon. the Minister indicated, tremendous progress was made last year with regard to education at technikons. The technikons at Mabopane East and Mangosuthu, as well as various other technikons, are proof of this. For instance, it was my privilege too to visit the technikon at Mabopane East. At the moment audiovisual centres are being erected there too, as well as very, very well equipped libraries, which can be compared with the best in the country. Everyone who has already been there and seen the beautiful positioning of that technikon, will also realize that a building was erected there which is functional, but which also complies with aesthetic standards. Therefore, it is very clear that a very modern, efficient campus is being constructed there for the use of the Black people.

The further development, as embodied in the legislation under discussion, is to my mind a further logical step. The official Opposition, and probably many other people too, lose sight of the fact that technical orientation in Black education starts as early as in the primary school, in Std. 5 in fact. With the differentiated system of education, which is also followed throughout the secondary school, Black children who have the ability, are given the opportunity of ultimately receiving education at a technikon or even at a university, which will then be the culmination of their education. Consequently, technikons offer the opportunity to students with the necessary ability, aptitude and interest to utilize the extensive facilities that are put at their disposal there. Further to this, it therefore offers these Black students the opportunity of entering a wide working sphere so that they can be trained ultimately to offer their services where it was not possible for them to do so in the past, to the benefit of the country as a whole.

They will still have to work in separate factory halls. You cannot have them together.

Mr. Speaker, sometimes I do in fact respect the hon. member for Pinelands. However, when he makes such a ridiculous statement, it does not merit a reaction. [Interjections.] At the moment our economy is experiencing a boom, for which we are all very, very grateful. I personally am also grateful that the hon. the Minister is now producing this piece of legislation so that we can also provide this education, in order to create an instrument against the total onslaught that is being launched against us. However, this can only be done if we keep our economy strong.

I should like to touch upon another important aspect. It is very clear in the legislation that this technikon is also at the service of the national States. It is important to me that the Black people who receive technical training in the technikons, can then be made available, not only to the working spheres in the economy of White South Africa, but also to their own national States where they can also provide their services for the development of those States.

There are also a few matters with regard to the legislation itself that I want to elucidate. I think there are principles that are important. The first is the fact that the measure is an umbrella one which presents the opportunity of erecting technikons at any place by means of proclamation, and also that any existing or new institution can make use of this legislation to become a true, autonomous technikon, as in the case of Mabopane East.

The second very important aspect is that this legislation aims at ensuring that such technikons will obtain complete autonomy, in the same way as any university has complete autonomy. Proof of this is the fact that it is a juristic person and with the approval of the hon. the Minister may enter into an agreement with any body or institution—as indicated in clause 4(6)—and the fact that such technikon can manage its own affairs with the assistance of a director, a board of studies and staff; the fact that it can establish its own posts on a basis determined by the hon. the Minister, as well as the fact that the minimum study requirements with which a person must comply before he is admitted, are determined by the council. There is also the fact that there is a Co-ordinating Council for Technical Education which can advise the hon. the Minister on any matter related to advanced technical training. I find this important, because—and here I associate myself with what I said at the beginning—we must provide this training in order to be able to comply with the needs existing in the working sphere. The Coordinating Council for Technical Education, which is composed of the different groups, can give the hon. the Minister the necessary advice so that the different requirements can be complied with.

I should also like to draw attention to two or three further provisions. With the approval of the council and the hon. the Minister satellite campuses may be established. It is important that such a technikon should not be established in one particular place only, but that the technikon should also be able to offer technical training elsewhere, where it is required, under the control of the technikon itself. Therefore, the technikon can spread its wings and provide training in a wider sphere. There is also the fact that the training may take place on full-or part-time basis.

In clause 12(3) and (4) powers are granted to the council of the technikon so that it can exercise control over the academic progress of the students of the technikon. I think this is an important aspect, and it applies to certain White universities too. I think it is absolutely essential for it to be applied in this case too. If someone attends a technikon and does not do what is expected of him there, it will be within the power of the council to say: My friend, you had rather find yourself somewhere else to study now. I just want to add that it is a glad day because we are able to place this piece of legislation on the Statute Book. We are pleased to give our full support to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member who has just sat down needs only half a chance to weigh in with a speech on apartheid here. He said certain things which in my view were contentious, when one considers that we are really dealing here with education at the tertiary level. I think if the hon. member were to reread the passages he quoted here and were to look at them as objectively as possible he would realize that those quotations do not concern this level of education, but actually a very much lower level of education, and that they are aimed at that lower level.

That is not so.

The hon. member says it is not so. If we must really start debating that, in the end one has to say that there should never be universities such as Oxford and Cambridge which cater for people throughout the world. According to that argument, the UNO would have to say that they should be abolished or closed. This is what in fact the hon. member is implying in his reasoning. I concede the point that, when one is dealing with a much lower level and with children in their formative years, possibly his remarks apply, as they do to the language in which instruction is given. Nobody will argue against it that in the beginning stages of the learning process obviously instruction must be in the mother tongue and it must be orientated towards a specific culture, but it will really not do to try to adopt that sort of approach at the tertiary level. It was also said that there will be only one technikon for all the different Black nations.

We did not say that.

But that is the de facto situation. I want to be the hon. member’s friend, but he makes it very difficult for me. We want to support the Bill. The problem is that the hon. member then came with that approach.

If one really looks at the Bill, one sees that it is a good piece of legislation. It is all a question of how one markets it. The hon. member for Virginia is in fact doing a disservice to this Bill by marketing it in that particular way.

Who started with that? Your friend did.

I think one has to be very careful how one deals with a situation of this nature. In the first place, if one thinks about it, one realizes that this type of legislation really has nothing to do with apartheid. If there is a need for a technikon, a technikon to serve not only the national States or the Black people in South Africa, but to serve all the people of South Africa, or a section of the people or a community in South Africa, one does not need to tie it down to the ramifications of apartheid. [Interjections.] It is unfortunate that it is always tied to that and that it is said that because of apartheid and the grand design, one also gets the wonderful “pasella” of a technikon. My plea to hon. members is that we should rather stay clear of that situation. If the State or the powers that be want to establish a technikon in a certain geographical location, they should go ahead and do so. If it happened to be at Mabopane East or, for that matter, at Soweto, obviously it would become a de facto Black technikon. That in itself is not the problem. It was not my intention originally to belabour this point, but since we have started off with it perhaps it would be best to make it quite clear how we see the situation. The problem does not so much lie with it being said that a technikon is being established exclusively for Blacks. Where the problem really lies is that we sit here in this all-White Parliament making that decision in isolation for other communities.

That is where the problem arises. This is what we shall have to live with as long as these political vacuums exist in South Africa. In the new republic, which must come one day, we shall overcome that sort of difficulty because there will be nobody in a political vacuum. Therefore Mabopane will also form part of a community. They will be the community who will decide on the character of their institution of technical education. Therefore if they wish it to be an exclusively Black technikon over which they have political control, then it will have been their decision. However, what makes me personally sad when I think about it is that still today we debate things in isolation and take important decisions for other communities. It is on that basis that I say that if we want to criticize this matter then of course there is a great deal of criticism we can find in the principle of having this type of legislation. It has already been said by the hon. member Professor Olivier that we are dealing with the factual situation in South Africa and the factual situation under this Government is that progress is along these lines and therefore we have to accept the fact that that type of restriction will be placed on it. However. I want to add that it must at all times be our aim to have our universities and technikons regarded as equivalent institutions in their various fields, the one perhaps entirely in the academic field and the other in the field of technology. The hon. member for Virginia said that in this particular case a move towards the ideal would be autonomy on a basis equivalent to that of a university. The sad fact of the matter—and this is where I feel one could have the criticism tied to the political framework—is that within the political framework in which we operate no institution of tertiary education will ever reach that stage where it can say that it has full autonomy and that it has full freedom to decide, for instance, on admission to that institution. The sad thing about this is that they will never reach the cherry on the top which the hon. member wants them to reach. They will never be able to reach it. [Interjections.] I am merely trying to deal with the factual situation as I see it and we cannot run away from it. Let us now come back to realities.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I should like to move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—